• The court says it's yet to render its reasoned judgment which will outline the basis on which the election of the President-elect was upheld.
• The statement comes hot of the heels of accusations from a section of Azimio leaders who insinuated that the court was biased in its judgment on the presidential petition.
The Supreme Court has called for an end to what it terms sustained sponsored attacks regarding its judgment on the presidential petition.
In a statement on Monday, the apex court said it executed its mandate in accordance with the Constitution.
"The persons sponsoring and executing the attacks on social media to disparage the Court are advised to desist forthwith," the statement reads.
The court further states that if anything, it's yet to render its full judgment which will outline the basis on which the election of the President-elect was upheld.
The court has also dismissed claims that some of its judges have submitted resignation letters saying there is no reason for any of the seven judges to do so.
"The Court is working in harmony as a cohesive unit," the statement said.
The statement comes hot on the heels of accusations from several Azimio leaders who insinuated that the court was biased in its judgment on the presidential petition.
Siaya Senator James Orengo and Azimio running mate Martha Karua have made remarks which insinuated that the court's decision was unanimous.
“The person who wrote that judgment has done a great injustice to the rule of law,” Orengo said on Sunday.
Karua said the Supreme Court's judgment was final but she is personally considering moving to the East African Court for an explanation of the court's verdict.
"There is nowhere else we can go to argue on presidential election results, but we can take the case to another place, to understand if it is true our court gave us justice,” Karua said.
“Now is not about the election, it's about justice, the court said our evidence was a hot air balloon, this can take me to East Africa just to discuss that judgement.”
Busia Senator Okiyah Omtatah also said the court's verdict on the Presidential petition appeared to have been written by one male judge of the apex court.
He attributed this to the language the court used in dismissing the nine issues that were raised in the seven consolidated petitions.
According to the activist turned politician, the language used in the judgment is synonymous to the one used by a particular male judge in his judicial declarations.
"I request that the Supreme Court judge who wrote the judgment shapes up. Dismissing the petitions was enough. When you insult one party it means you are with the other party," Omtatah said.
The court used words such as hot air, wild goose chase and unproven hypothesis.
But the court said its decision was unanimous.
"The Court has seven judges who are independent and highly respectful of each other as equals. A ‘unanimous’ judgment is a collective decision made by the court and not by an individual."
The court asked Kenyans to exercise patience as they await the full judgment which will shed light and provide clarity on the grounds and rationale of its verdict.
"There is a legal provision of 21 days following the reading of the short version of the judgment to do so," the court said.