Why IEBC should not be afraid of its own

The debate over the Elections (Amendment) Bill has exposed a larger problem than a disagreement over electoral procedure. It has revealed how fragile public trust remains in Kenya’s electoral institutions, and how easily that trust can be undermined.

The Bill seeks to amend the provisions of the Elections Act that require the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to establish a mechanism for livestreaming polling station results for public information. Critics have interpreted the proposal as an attempt to roll back one of the transparency safeguards introduced after years of electoral controversy.

To its credit, the IEBC has sought to calm public fears. The Commission insists the proposal has been misunderstood. According to the IEBC, the amendment is intended to accommodate alternative transmission methods in areas where internet connectivity remains poor. It also maintains that livestreamed results are informational only and cannot legally form the basis for declaring election outcomes. The law would still require verification using the original Forms 34A and other established procedures.

These clarifications deserve to be taken seriously. Yet they do not fully address the concern. The issue is not merely what the amendment does. It is what it signals.

At a time when Kenya needs greater confidence in electoral institutions, not less, the suggestion to weaken livestreaming requirements creates unnecessary anxiety. The conversation should be about expanding transparency and access to information, not introducing ambiguities around one of the few electoral reforms that enjoys broad public support.

Verified results

Supporters argue that livestreaming may contribute to misinformation because preliminary figures are not the same as verified results.

That is true. But it does not follow that fewer people should see those figures. The answer to misinformation is not less information. It is more information.