When the referee joins the match and why words matter at IEBC

IEBC Chairperson Erastus Ethekon, alongside members of the Commission, National Police Service IG Douglas Kanja and National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) Chairman Dr Kepha Omae addressed the press ahead 2 days before Olkalou by-election. July 14, 2026. [Jonah Onyango, Standard

In every credible election, the most valuable asset an electoral commission possesses is not offices, technology, or budget. It is public confidence. Elections are ultimately an exercise in trust. Citizens must believe the referee is impartial, that the rules apply equally to all contestants, and every complaint will be assessed fairly and legally.

That is why public statements by commissioners of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission deserve scrutiny. Recent comments attributed to an IEBC commissioner, suggesting that distribution of government items such as mattresses, gas cylinders, and other goods during the Ol Kalou by-election period is not automatically voter bribery, have generated debate. Whether any specific conduct amounts to bribery is a legal question that depends on facts and law. But the way electoral officials discuss such issues affects public confidence.

The IEBC must be careful not only to be impartial, but to be seen so. The distinction matters. An electoral commission does not exist to defend politicians or prosecute them. Its constitutional duty is to administer elections fairly, investigate complaints within its mandate, and cooperate with enforcement agencies where necessary.

When commissioners appear to minimise concerns that citizens consider serious, they risk creating the impression that the commission has reached conclusions before investigations. Perception matters. In football, no referee would survive if supporters believed every controversial decision favoured one team. Even if technically correct, repeated appearances of partiality would destroy confidence in the competition.

The same principle applies to elections. Kenya’s electoral history has taught painful lessons about institutional credibility. Every cycle shows that trust in the process can be built over years and damaged within moments. Commissioners must exercise discipline.

The issue extends beyond Ol Kalou. The broader question is whether electoral institutions communicate in ways that reassure citizens or deepen suspicion. If allegations arise that government programmes, public resources, or material benefits are distributed close to an election, the response from an independent electoral body should never appear dismissive. It should be measured, professional, and anchored in due process.

The commission could simply state that it has noted the allegations, will examine the facts under the applicable legal framework, and expects all parties to comply with electoral laws. Such a response protects investigations and institutional neutrality. Anything more risks pulling the commission into political contests where it does not belong.

Institutions often lose credibility not because they are biased, but because they create the appearance of bias. Once that perception takes root, every future decision becomes suspect. Every announcement is questioned. Every declaration is doubted. Every result becomes controversial. That is dangerous for any commission.

The Constitution established the IEBC as an independent commission because elections cannot be credible if the umpire is perceived to favour one side. Political parties are expected to defend themselves. Government officials are expected to defend government programmes.

Candidates are expected to defend their campaigns. The IEBC should defend only the integrity of the electoral process. Nothing else. The commission should resist entering political arguments. Its authority comes from constitutional restraint. The more it speaks like a political actor, the more it risks being treated like one. That outcome would harm democracy.

If citizens begin to believe the commission has abandoned neutrality and aligned with one side, public discourse changes. The commission stops being seen as an independent referee and becomes another participant. Once that happens, every action taken by the commission will be interpreted through a partisan lens. The IEBC must never occupy such ground. Its legitimacy depends on maintaining constitutional distance from political actors.

The commission should remember an old principle of justice. Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. The same is true of elections. Neutrality must not merely exist internally. It must be visible to every Kenyan.

This moment presents an opportunity. The commission can reassure the country by emphasising that allegations of electoral offences will be assessed impartially, investigated where necessary, and addressed according to law without fear or favour. Such an approach strengthens democracy regardless of who wins or loses.

Ultimately, elections are temporary. Governments change. Oppositions evolve. Political coalitions rise and fall. Constitutional institutions must remain. The IEBC should guard its reputation carefully. Reputations built over decades can be weakened by statements made in minutes.

As Kenya prepares for another competitive electoral cycle, the electoral commission must inspire confidence across the spectrum, not because everyone agrees with its decisions, but because everyone believes those decisions are independent, professional and without political influence. That is the standard the Constitution demands. It is also the standard Kenyans deserve.