NAIROBI – A significant legal challenge aiming to reshape Kenya's presidential election framework has gained momentum, with former Attorney General Justin Muturi advocating for the abolition of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission's (IEBC) National Tallying Centre. The move, part of a broader push for electoral reform, argues that the centralised tallying process is a primary source of public mistrust and political tension that has plagued previous elections.

The argument is central to at least two petitions recently filed at the High Court, including one by Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah. The petitions contend that the practice of re-tallying and verifying presidential results in Nairobi, historically at the Bomas of Kenya, is unconstitutional. Proponents of this legal challenge assert that according to Articles 86 and 138 of the Constitution, results declared by returning officers at the 290 constituency tallying centres are final and should not be subjected to a secondary verification process.

Speaking on Tuesday, November 25, 2025, Mr. Muturi, who served as Attorney General in the current administration, threw his weight behind this interpretation, stating that the IEBC's role should be to simply collate and announce the final constituency results, not to alter or re-verify them. This view is echoed by leaders in the United Opposition, who have filed a similar case arguing that the national tallying centre creates a parallel and superior verification stage not envisioned by the constitution, thereby opening the door to potential manipulation.

A History of Controversy

The National Tallying Centre, often physically located at the Bomas of Kenya, has been the epicentre of dramatic and often chaotic scenes during presidential election cycles. The delays inherent in the centralised verification process have been cited as a major contributor to national anxiety and suspicion. In the 2022 General Election, the final days of the tallying process were marred by public disagreements among IEBC commissioners, culminating in four of the seven commissioners disowning the final result announced by then-Chairperson Wafula Chebukati. These events, broadcast live from Bomas, severely undermined public confidence in the electoral outcome, leading to a presidential petition at the Supreme Court.

While the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the election of President William Ruto, its full judgment noted the need for corporate governance reforms within the IEBC. The court affirmed that the mandate of tallying and verification is vested in the Commission collectively, though the final declaration remains the exclusive role of the Chairperson. The current petitions before the High Court seek to eliminate this centralised verification role entirely, arguing it is a redundancy that fuels disputes.

The Legal and Constitutional Arguments

The core of the petitioners' case rests on the principle of decentralisation, which they argue is embedded in the Constitution. They contend that Section 39 of the Elections Act, which empowers the IEBC to verify results at the national level, is unconstitutional. According to Senator Omtatah's petition, the role of the IEBC Chairperson is "strictly clerical"—to aggregate the 290 final constituency results and declare the winner who meets the constitutional threshold of 50%-plus-one and 25% of votes in at least 24 counties.

This legal interpretation has been advanced before. In 2016, the Court of Appeal, in the renowned Maina Kiai case, ruled that results declared at the polling station and constituency levels were final and could not be altered by the IEBC headquarters. However, the practical application of this ruling has remained contentious, with the national tallying centre retaining its verification function in subsequent elections.

Those who support retaining the national centre argue it serves as a crucial final checkpoint to correct arithmetic errors and ensure consistency before a winner is declared. They maintain it provides a single, authoritative point for observers, media, and party agents to witness the final stages, potentially enhancing transparency. However, critics argue that Kenya's political experience shows constituency tallying centres are the most transparent and verifiable points in the electoral chain, as they are closer to the voters and subject to immediate scrutiny by all parties.

Implications for the 2027 General Election

Should the High Court agree with the petitioners, it would represent the most significant overhaul of Kenya's presidential election management since the 2010 Constitution. The IEBC, now under the leadership of Chairperson Erastus Ethekon, would be compelled to redesign its results transmission and announcement framework. The change would mean the presidential winner could be known much faster, as the final tally would be a simple summation of results already declared publicly at the constituency level.

This legal battle comes as the reconstituted IEBC faces intense scrutiny ahead of by-elections scheduled for Thursday, November 27, 2025, which are seen as a litmus test for its preparedness for the 2027 polls. Political leaders, including former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, have also recently called for results to be finalised at the constituency level to curb malpractice and reduce political tension. The outcome of this case will therefore be pivotal in shaping not only the logistics of the next election but also in the ongoing efforts to restore public faith in Kenya's democratic processes.