Focus on IEBC chairman Wafula Chebukati as commission prepares for repeat presidential poll

IEBC Chairman Wafula Chebukati. (Photo: Willis Awandu/Standard)

Eight months in office, electoral commission chairman Wafula Chebukati has had a baptism of fire with the bungled elections and now he has 34 days to address the flaws to deliver a credible fresh election.

Mr Chebukati assumed office after his predecessor was ejected last year over the conduct of the 2013 elections although the Supreme Court upheld the vote. Chebukati finds himself in a difficult position given the nullification of the August 8 poll and the harsh indictment of the institution he heads.

The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) boss yesterday explained that the damning judgement impacts on the election operations, in particular the technology deployed, hence the postponing of the repeat poll from October 17 to October 26.

To deliver an election that meets the standards set by the Supreme Court, which ruled that the process is as important as the final tally, within a month, Chebukati's commission must implement far-reaching changes to redress the flaws pointed out by the court, which warned that it would nullify the next poll if it does not meet the threshold.

Chebukati is arguably holding one of the toughest jobs in the country, faced with a strict timeline and a divided commission he must rally to work towards achieving the goal to deliver a credible election in a month to ease the tension building up across the country.

In addition, the chairman must confront demands by politicians, especially National Super Alliance presidential candidate Raila Odinga, that certain conditions must be met before the repeat presidential polls are held.

The most pressing, however, is the preparation Chebukati has to put in place before October 26 to avoid the mistakes IEBC made that led to the nullification of President Uhuru Kenyatta’s win on August 8.

A majority decision of the Supreme Court judges found that the commission committed substantial irregularities and illegalities, leading to the declaration that the presidential election was not done in accordance with the Constitution and relevant election laws.

Chebukati’s predicament is compounded by the pronouncement by Chief Justice David Maraga, his deputy Philomena Mwilu, and judges Smokin Wanjala and Isaac Lenaola that IEBC must get it right on October 26 or they will not hesitate to invalidate the election again.

“We will not close our eyes to electoral irregularities and illegalities that would interfere with the credibility of election. All we are saying is that IEBC must conduct the election in conformity with the law or we will adjudicate in a similar way if called upon to determine another petition,” said the court.

To avoid a repeat of the mistakes, the Supreme Court singled out the areas the commission failed and which it must improve to ensure the presidential election is free, fair, credible, transparent, accountable, and verifiable.

Amid the rush of time to comply with the Supreme Court recommendations, Chebukati will first have to bridge the gap between him and some commissioners for them to approach the election as a united team.

He also has to find a way of working with the chief executive officer, Ezra Chiloba, with whom they have had a frosty relationship. NASA has also demanded that Mr Chiloba resign if they are to take part in the repeat election.

The key issues raised by the Supreme Court which the commission must address include results transmission, uniformity of forms 34A and 34B, use of KIEMS, 3G and 4G networks, gazetting of all polling stations, verification of all forms before announcing final results, and ensuring that the electronic voting system is properly working.

Transmission of results

The Supreme Court judges were clear in their judgement that IEBC did not comply with the Constitution and election laws in transmitting presidential results and in the end this affected the credibility of the entire election process.

Chebukati will have to comply with the concerns raised by the Supreme Court over delay and irregularities in transmitting results if the repeat election is to comply with the Elections Act.

He must also ensure that the transmissions are done in a timely manner, given that the judges found that the delay in simultaneous transmission of results affected the validity of the presidential results.

Uniformity of forms 34A, 34B

The commission must ensure that there is uniformity in all forms used to record, tally, and transmit results.

The judges wondered why the forms 34A and 34B, which were apparently manufactured by the same company, had different features, while others lacked authenticity that would have disproved claims of being fake.

Gazetting of all polling stations

The judges’ findings were that the commission did not offer satisfactory explanation to the use of ungazetted polling stations, which led them believe claims by NASA that the commission did not gazette all polling stations in accordance with the law.

Chebukati will, therefore, have to ensure that all polling stations are gazetted and that records of election materials supplied to the polling stations can easily be accessed and verified.

Declaration of final results

The judges found two irregularities in declaration of the final results which Chebukati must deal with before he declares the winner.

The first was that he declared Mr Uhuru the winner before receiving and verifying all forms 34A and without allowing all presidential candidates’ agents’ access to forms 34A and 34B.

“We note that at the time of declaration of results, IEBC publicly admitted it had not received results from 11,883 polling stations and 17 constituency tallying centres. We kept asking what the hurry was if the chairman had not verified all forms 34A and 34B,” ruled the judges.

According to the Supreme Court, the commission made a mistake in denying all agents’ access to transmitted forms, which created an impression that the results were being doctored.

Signing of Forms

The IEBC chairman will have to ensure that all presiding officers correctly enter the final presidential results and ensure that all agents have signed the forms.

According to the Supreme Court judges, they wondered why the chairman accepted to base his final results on forms that were not properly signed by the presiding officers who generated them.

Use of technology and complimentary system

The judges were categorical that use of technology could not be lowered to just a vehicle that had no significance in the authenticity of the final vote since it is the only way of giving assurance that final results are not manipulated.

The failure of IEBC to open up its servers and logs for audit is what contributed to justification of invalidating the presidential election, with the judge’s ruling that it failed to give a clear picture of the efficiency of the technology used.

The commission will, therefore, have to ensure that the whole of its technology system is working flawlessly.