Worrying signals from IEBC as elections deadline looms

Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) Chairman Wafula Chebukati speaks during a meeting with leaders of political parties at Laico Regency hotel in Nairobi on April 12, 2017. The IEBC is under tight time constraints given the legal deadlines. PHOTO | SALATON NJAU | NATION MEDIA GROUP

What you need to know:

  • It certainly would be better if IEBC was more honest and transparent and seek to do things right, rather than just fast!
  • The point is that IEBC should be encouraging alternative forms of accountability instead of seeking to monopolise the process.

Kenya desperately needs an honest and competent IEBC if we are to have credible elections as the basis for peace, stability and legitimacy.

Yet IEBC seems determined to weaken its credibility, which it alone needs to earn by its actions and decisions.

No amount of praise-singing, as some would like, can give it credibility.

Together with the Kenya Police, the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, and the NGO Coordination Board, the IEBC seems determined to deny us confidence in it, and take us back to the dark old days.

Three recent actions and decisions suffice to illustrate IEBC’s deep desire to thwart Kenya’s progress to democracy and development.

IMPORT WAIVER REQUEST

First, this week an insider source informed me that IEBC wrote to the Kenya Bureau of Standards, Kebs, asking for a waiver of the mandatory Certificate of Compliance (COC) that is issued after a Pre-Export Verification of Conformity to Standards (PVOC).

The PVOC is required on all goods being imported into Kenya to ensure that what is being shipped is fit for purpose, meets the requirements stated and is not junk or harmful.

This waiver concerns the importation of electronic gadgets for the August elections, necessary to increase confidence in integrity of the elections.

Obviously, the IEBC is under tight time constraints given the legal deadlines.

It keeps telling us that it will be ready, but that remains to be seen.

It certainly would be better if IEBC was more honest and transparent and seek to do things right, rather than just fast!

Nevertheless, the import of this waiver is that there is no independent guarantee that whatever gadgets we get for the elections will be working.

INDEPENDENT TALLYING

Sure, there will be some public testing of some of them when they arrive but the possibility of getting only a few working gadgets — which will be the ones publicly tested — is very high.

We were here in 2013, and thus far there is nothing to suggest we are not repeating the same mistakes.

I will be shocked if the Electronic Voter Identification Kits (EVIDs), which go with the BVR register all work on August 8!

These EVID kits create a traceable electronic footprint to see who actually voted, making it harder for ghost voters to vote.

The manual identification process, which we will likely see, entails crossing out names on a printed data base, meaning that clerks and presiding officers can cross out as many names as they want and vote for them!

The second issue is the back and forth that the IEBC engaged in with Nasa on their proposed independent tallying of results as announced at the polling station.

That it took a meeting to quell the firestorm that IEBC created by its bad reading of the law speaks volumes.

Anyone, from media, observers, to political parties, should be encouraged to tally the results as they come in.

ENCOURAGE CREDIBILITY
Jubilee did this in 2013, to the extent of even sharing a server with IEBC and there was nary a complaint.

Of course the official announcement of the results lies with the IEBC.

But nothing stops anyone from doing their own arithmetic on the results. Kenyans are not stupid: we know which results will have been sexed up and which are genuine.

The point is that IEBC should be encouraging alternative forms of accountability instead of seeking to monopolise the process.

Such efforts send a signal that something is in the works to achieve a particular result.

And thirdly, is the fact that IEBC decided to defend the petition seeking to implement the Constitution that IEBC officials have no business or role in altering, verifying, or otherwise tampering with results as announced in the polling stations.

The Constitution is clear on this — and kudos to the three judges for such a clear, well-reasoned and coherent judgment.

In fact, it was surprising that IEBC, and the Attorney General decided to defend not just an illegality, but something that they know is always a source of tensions and divisions.

And now, I am told, IEBC is planning to appeal the decision.

One must ask: is IEBC interested in delivering a credible election or are they more interested in a specific result, damn the consequences?