NASA Results 4 - Someone is faking results and defrauding Kenyans, but who ?

With Odinga’s swearing in as ”President of Kenya” today and the banning of the NRM, attention is moving away from the legitimacy of Odinga’s claims to more urgent security concerns. But it is still essential for Kenyans and foreign supporters alike to know whether NASA’s claims that the election was stolen and that Odinga and Musyoka won have any merit.

So far, we have reviewed three counties, with two turning up gross fraud by NASA in their "results" summary and one left uncertain but with real doubts about the IEBC results as well. Today we look at Turkana.

While I have been trawling through the NASA file, I have also had the opportunity to watch the Livestream on ODM’s Facebook page of the event where NASA’s “stolen election” case was launched on Friday 26 January. This was introduced by James Orengo and led by Geoffrey Osotsi, an IT expert and now ANC nominated MP and attended by Odinga, Kalonzo and others. There was a huge degree of confidence in that room, with Orengo declaring “This is it” and Osotsi announcing “we are going to unmask the truth” and that they would report the "uncompromised and authentic" result.  The material presented was exactly the same  - at the summary level - as I have been analysing. Orengo confirmed that the data was taken from the IEBC servers but refused to say how. Osotsi's explanation for the difference between their results and IEBC's focussed again on the results display portal and its alleged hacking, without explaining how the "hacked" portal could have the same results as adding up the 290 paper form 34Bs produced by the constituency returning officers nationwide (which it did). Unless of course the returning officers were each faking the results in the same way in parallel.

IEBC's immediate response was dismissive, calling NASA's material "a deliberate attempt to create a non-existent reality" but Orengo's debating point remains sound: why did IEBC not release a similar file after the August election (recognising that they were not official results and by definition incomplete)  They were willing to do it for October (which I have) and the explanations for why they couldn't do it for August were far from compelling. The suspicion remains that they had something to hide.

Now, to Turkana. I begin by comparing the NASA summary page against the NASA polling station detail, then against the IEBC results and try to draw conclusions on the most likely story. We have already learnt that every single country summary produced by NASA's IT expert team so far examined was wrong, two of them hugely, the other marginally. I have also raised doubts concerning the Isiolo results reported by the IEBC, but have no further means to resolve them as we are in a “he said, she said” situation, with two competing “originals” with completely different results. But someone is lying and faking results, that I am sure.

Part four of the deep dive - Turkana - gave another mixed picture. NASA's polling station file, which I am sure was based on something taken from the IEBC, gave results closer to that in NASA’s summary than those reported by the IEBC. Registered voters were the same (roughly, allowing for my possible transcription errors) and there were no double-postings of EVID results

In Summary:
                                REGD                    UHURU              RAILA
IEBC                       191,435                  58,744                 71,063
NASA Summary     191,435                  37,444                 119,577
NASA Detail            191,325                 37,730                 112,914

There are two issues:
1) NASA has again added 7000 votes to their own total in the summary that aren’t in the detail file (so, again, the summary file has been faked).
2) There is a fundamental difference of 40,000 votes between the IEBC and NASA polling station-level reports.

So, which is right? The NASA summary would give a turnout of 83% in Turkana, a suspiciously high number and even the detail figure gives a high 79%, compared to IEBC's 69%.  Do the other elections give us any calibration? In the Gubernatorial election, it was a two-horse race. ODM (Nanok) won the governorship by 76,000 votes to 55,000 (all numbers rounded), which matches closely in turnout and voting pattern to the IEBC presidential results. 135,000 people voted in that election. In Parliament, of the six parliamentary seats, three were won by Jubilee, three by NASA. Jubilee candidates polled 62,000 votes while ODM polled 52,000, Wiper 10,000 and pro-NASA independents 6500, giving 62,000 for Jubilee and 69,000 for NASA. There were 136,000 votes cast, a 71% turnout. This gives us the following:

                              Jubilee                NASA+                  TOTAL
 Governor              55,000                  76,000                   135,000
 MPs                      62,000                  69,000                   136,000
 IEBC Presid.        59,000                   71,000                   132,000
 NASA Detail Pres 38,000                113,000                   152,000                 

From this alone, NASA’s polling station numbers look very questionable. For their data to be genuine, 16,000 Turkana people would have had to queue and vote for Raila but refuse to vote for Governor or for their MP and another 20,000 would have had to vote for Jubilee in Governor and MP but Raila in the presidency.

Sampling a few specific polling stations at random to see if we can see a pattern in the discrepancies, we see in Turkana Central in the IEBC Form 34b:

To the NASA polling station file for the same four stations, there is simply no relationship at all:

In Turkana North, we see from the IEBC:

Against NASA's:

In both cases, there is little or no relationship between the two competing truths. I can only conclude that in both cases, one or other number has been “made up”. But which?