The recent consultative meeting between the IEBC and the four presidential candidates is a welcome development to all stakeholders
Coming slightly over a month to the August 9 general election, this is a testimony to the seriousness the candidates and their supporters attest to the underlying issues at hand.
The importance of the meeting was attested by fact that all the four presidential candidates attended in person. This, along with their running mates with the exception of two, indicates that indeed there were key electoral management concerns that required to be addressed. The matters to be canvassed were of utmost concern to the candidates the electorate.
To buttress the importance of the process, the event was open to the public and was broadcasted live on mainstream electronic media. This was despite an earlier attempt by the commission to lock out the media and by extension the public.
With about a month to the election, attention now turns to the electoral management commission. In terms of electoral management, the IEBC led by chairman Wafula Chebukati, the commissioners and the CEO and Information Technology director put up a spirited presentation of their preparedness.
Space constraints may not allow the canvassing of all the issues raised but a summary would suffice.
Key among the issues were the electronic and manual voter identification systems and transmission of results in the absence of satellite networks. Of great concern was the issue of poll officers colluding with absentee voters, whose details they have that would be eventually be keyed into the system to allow absentee voting, which is illegal.
However, the key elephant in the room was the voter identification. Two schools of thought emerged. One led by the IEBC was for biometric only identification, while the others were for the use of the manual register as a backup in the event of technology failure.
The other issues raised included matters of integrity of the commission staff. Those in attendance expressed concern if that was not addressed, it could jeopardise the electoral outcome, in the process subverting the democratic will of the people.
Section 44 of the Elections Act establishes an integrated electronic electoral system to enable biometric voter registration, electronic voter identification and electronic transmission of results.
Section 44A of the Act authorises the IEBC to put in place a complementary mechanism for the identification of voters that is simple, accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable and transparent.
Regulation 26 of the Elections (Technology) Regulation, 2017 authorises the IEBC to suspend or terminate the use of election technology and set out the procedure to be followed before suspension or termination of the use of election technology.
And according to Regulation 69(1)(e) of Election (General) Regulations, 2012, in the event an electronic voter identification device fails to identify a voter, the presiding officer is required to invite the agents and candidates in the station to witness that the device indeed cannot not identify the voter. Thereafter the presiding officer should complete Form 32A before identifying the voter using the printed register of voters.
However, all the candidates ,their running mates and their retinue of legal advisers were in agreement that a free fair credible and verifiable election is what the electorate and to an extent the public desire.
These are the reasons why ongoing open discourse is crucial in the electoral process.
First, by being more open, the IEBC reinvigorates voter and stakeholder confidence in the electoral system.
Second, the stakeholders, including the public and registered voters, are now aware that the commission is ready to listen to their concerns.
Third, the huge number of undecided voters totalling over four million according to opinion polls may now decide to troop to the ballot booths.
Fourth, the voters are able to make well-versed decisions when there is readily available information on the electoral process.
Fifth, for those with biometric and finger print issues, they can now rest assured they will not be left out. This number, according to conservative estimates, is 2.4 million voters.
Sixth, there is now an assurance to the 4,189,614 people with disabilities, representing 18.94 per cent of the eligible voting population, of not being disenfranchised.
In conclusion, the commission deserves commendation for weeding out close to half a million illegal voters from the poll register. This would have had a profound effect on the electoral outcome, particularly for the presidential election. The threshold for the winner requires a majority in the half of the counties and 50%+1 of the valid ballots cast.
The elections are a work in progress and not an event. This, therefore, calls for issues arising to be adequately prosecuted to uphold voter and public confidence in the process.
Dr Njau Gitu is an educator practicing as a governance and leadership adviser
@GNjauGitu
WATCH: The latest videos from the Star
