Court Battle Reignites Debate on Electoral Integrity

A coalition of senior opposition leaders has filed a constitutional petition at the High Court in Nairobi seeking to make presidential election results announced at the constituency level final and unalterable. The move aims to prevent the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) from conducting any further verification or tallying at the national level, a process the petitioners argue is unconstitutional and a vector for electoral malpractice.

The high-stakes petition, lodged on Tuesday, November 18, 2025, is spearheaded by prominent figures including former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua and Wiper Party Leader Kalonzo Musyoka. Their legal challenge seeks a declaration that the IEBC's practice of centralizing the final verification and declaration of presidential results at a national tallying centre is unconstitutional, null, and void.

This legal battle unfolds even as Parliament considers the Elections (Amendment) Bill, 2024, a product of the bipartisan National Dialogue Committee (NADCO) talks. That bill, currently before the Senate, controversially proposes to scrap the live-streaming of presidential election results, a key transparency measure from previous polls.

The Core of the Dispute: Where Tallying Ends

The opposition's court case hinges on the argument that the final and incontrovertible presidential result is the one declared by the Constituency Returning Officer. They contend that the role of the IEBC chairperson at the national tallying centre should be limited to collating the 290 constituency results and declaring the winner based on simple arithmetic, without any power to "verify," alter, or reject them.

Their advocate, Gitobu Imanyara, stated that the petition accuses the IEBC of violating multiple constitutional provisions through its centralized process. The legal strategy revives the precedent set by the landmark 2017 Court of Appeal ruling in IEBC v. Maina Kiai & 5 Others. In that case, the court affirmed that results declared at the polling station and constituency levels are final and not provisional. The judgment asserted that the polling station is the primary locus for the free exercise of the voters' will and that subsequent forms are merely tallies of the original, final results recorded there.

The opposition's move signals a deep-seated mistrust in the national tallying process, which has been a focal point of contention in Kenya's historically turbulent election cycles. Allegations of result manipulation at the national centre have fueled post-election violence and numerous court challenges, most notably the Supreme Court's nullification of the 2017 presidential election.

A Parallel Legislative Path

The court petition creates a complex political and legal dynamic, running parallel to legislative efforts to reform the electoral system. The Elections (Amendment) Bill, 2024, which originated from the NADCO report, is co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Aaron Cheruiyot and Minority Leader Stewart Madzayo, indicating a degree of bipartisan consensus.

However, the bill's focus is on the mode of transmission rather than the finality of the tally. It proposes to repeal Section 39 of the Elections Act, removing the requirement for the IEBC to live-stream results as they are announced at polling stations. Instead, it mandates the electronic transmission of result forms (Form 34A) to the constituency and national tallying centres within two hours of their announcement at the polling station.

Critics of the bill warn that eliminating the live-stream could severely undermine public confidence and transparency. The provision was seen as a key safeguard, allowing the public and media to conduct parallel vote tabulation and compare it against the officially declared results. The proposed amendment would require citizens to manually access and tally digital images of result forms from the IEBC's online portal.

The opposition's decision to file a court case suggests a belief that the NADCO-led bill does not adequately address their core concern: the sanctity of the results declared at the constituency level. While the bill addresses the transmission of results, the lawsuit targets the authority to verify and tally those results at the national centre.

Historical Context and Future Implications

Kenya's history is fraught with disputed presidential elections, often leading to political instability and violence, as seen after the 2007 polls. The 2010 Constitution was designed to remedy these historical grievances by creating a more transparent and verifiable electoral system, with Articles 81 and 86 mandating that elections be simple, accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable, and transparent.

The 2017 Supreme Court decision to annul the presidential election was a watershed moment for African democracy, citing "irregularities and illegalities" in the transmission of results and the IEBC's failure to conduct the election in a manner consistent with the Constitution. That ruling, and the preceding Maina Kiai case, have empowered legal challenges focused on procedural integrity.

The current petition by the opposition seeks to legally entrench the decentralization of result finality, effectively clipping the powers of the IEBC chairperson at the national tallying centre. If successful, it would fundamentally reshape how presidential elections are concluded in Kenya, placing immense focus on the 290 Constituency Returning Officers.

Proponents argue this would enhance transparency and reduce the chances of large-scale manipulation at a single, central point. However, it could also shift the pressure and potential for malpractice to the constituency level. The IEBC and the government are expected to file responses in the coming days. As of Wednesday morning, November 19, 2025, the Attorney General's office had not issued a public statement on the matter. The case is set to become a critical test of Kenya's electoral laws and constitutional principles ahead of the 2027 General Election.