To assert independence, IEBC should act to undo bias claims

The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) is the only institution legally responsible for managing and supervising the conduct of elections and direct democracy instruments — such as referendums, citizens’ initiatives and recall votes.

It is established by article 88 of the Constitution and its powers and functions are outlined in article 88(4) and are exercised in accordance with the Constitution and legislation, including the IEBC Act, Elections Act and a number of other legislation.

Being one of the constitutional commissions and independent offices, which exist to protect the sovereignty of the people, secure observance by all State organs of democratic values and principles, and promote constitutionalism, the IEBC is independent and not subject to direction by any person or authority.

The IEBC's independence is necessary and critical to ensure credible, free and fair elections, because it increases voter confidence and trust and dispels any fears of bias or interference. The perception of bias and lack of independence may occur by IEBC appearing to being directed or receiving instructions or help on how to do its job.

The IEBC must remain vigilant to ensure its independence is not perceived as being eroded by the stakeholders to deliver peaceful, credible, free and fair elections. IEBC must remain and be seen to be professional, competent and fully independent.

Therefore, it came as no surprise to experts in this field when the IEBC decided not to participate in the National Multi-Sectoral Consultative Forum on Elections Preparedness launched in November 2021.

It is true that successful elections whose results are accepted by all competitors require the involvement of multi-sectoral stakeholders, in and outside government because of the nature of the electoral cycle whose activities in every step require involvement and active engagement of different stakeholders.

But it matters how these stakeholders are involved and actively engage in the management and supervision of elections, as the perception and actual independence of the IEBC must be safeguarded.

So, what are the terms of reference (ToRs) of the National Multi-Sectoral Consultative Forum on Elections Preparedness and why did IEBC depart? Who are its members and what are their roles? A careful analysis of the ToRs appear like the forum is mainly established with powers to perform the constitutional functions of IEBC and perhaps this is why chairman Wafula Chebukati left.

I should hope that before he left, he explained why the ToRs not only usurp IEBC’s powers and functions but will be the basis for numerous elections petitions and can seriously and fundamentally undermine peace and political stability.

The forum is led by the Judiciary, convened by the Ministry of Interior and National Coordination, its members are drawn from State actors and the rapporteur drawn from the Office of the Attorney General and Department of Justice. This is a commendable and patriotic effort to ensure the 2022 elections are peaceful, credible, free and fair. Nevertheless, the membership needs to be expanded to include non-State actors and its ToRs need to be revised to ensure it does not encroach the powers and functions of IEBC.

Finally, it should be led and convened by IEBC, who should outline areas in the electoral cycle/process it requires collaboration of stakeholders. This way, it will eliminate the perception of bias and interference.