On the day the referee announced the presidential election results at the Bomas of Kenya, one word in the English lexicon shot up in Kenyans’ chatter: opaque.
Just before the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission chairman Wafula Chebukati took to the podium to announce what would be tumultuous results challenged in court, four of his seven commissioners went before separate cameras at the Serena Hotel.
They would not own their chairman’s results, the four, led by vice chair Juliana Cherera, said. Why? Because Chebukati’s numbers were “opaque”.
And the word caught fire.
It was a compelling cue for media to explain the numbers. The Star took it up:
“Mathematical headache: Was Chebukati’s vote tally opaque?” said the heading on August 19.
For context, the story by Emmanuel Wanjala appropriately started off by defining “opaque” as “”not clear enough to see through or allow light through.”
Naturally, therefore, clarity was demanded.
First, the story tabled the total votes by each presidential candidate, per live streaming: William Ruto – 7,176,141; Raila Odinga – 6,942,930; George Wajackoyah – 61,969; and David Waihiga – 31,987.
Any calculator should compute this as 50.49 per cent of the vote for Ruto and 48.85 per cent for Raila, 0.23 per cent for Waihiga and 0.44 per cent for Wajackoyah.
Total: 100.01 per cent. The unexplained, extra 0.01 per cent gave birth to “opaque.”
The Star was about to tackle this head-on: “But are Chebukati’s final presidential results really opaque? Let’s find out.”
The story laid out numbers of registered voters, turnout, valid votes cast and invalid votes omitted, to arrive at a mathematically correct conclusion: “Based on Chebukati’s final tally of percentages each candidate attained, without rounding off the figures, they don’t add up to 100 per cent.”
They say journalism should show, not tell. The Star showed.
Everyone should read that story, then take a calculator. Then, decide who between Cherera’s Four Vs Chebukati and the Supreme Court can add and subtract correctly.
