IEBC's voter confidence in limbo after Ol Kalou show

The phrase "guarding the vote" has quickly become one of the defining political slogans in the aftermath of the Ol Kalou parliamentary by-election. While opposition leaders insist the call is simply about protecting every ballot from manipulation and ensuring the will of the people prevails, critics argue that it is a dangerous rhetoric that shows dwindling confidence in electoral institutions.

Yet beneath the political exchanges lies a more profound question: Why has the call to guard the vote resonated so strongly with sections of the electorate, and what does it reveal about public trust in Kenya's electoral system barely a year before the 2027 General Election?

The debate is no longer simply about one by-election.

Instead, it has reopened long-standing questions over whether Kenya's electoral laws, technology and institutions are sufficiently robust to guarantee credible elections and, perhaps more importantly, whether the public believes they are.

Traditionally, guarding the vote has referred to the role played by party agents in witnessing voting, counting and tallying to ensure every ballot cast is accurately recorded.

Over time, however, the phrase has evolved into a broader political rallying call, encouraging citizens themselves to remain vigilant throughout the electoral process.

But if Kenya's electoral laws already provide elaborate safeguards to protect every ballot, why has the phrase gained such traction?

The answer may lie in what unfolded in Ol Kalou.

The Nyandarua parliamentary by-election did more than produce a political upset. It also introduced a new dimension to Kenya's electoral landscape, with ordinary citizens assuming an active role in safeguarding what they believed to be the integrity of the vote.

Residents reportedly remained at polling stations long after casting their ballots, monitored the counting process and scrutinised vehicles approaching polling centres.

In one widely circulated incident, members of the public reportedly stopped a police vehicle and insisted that officers open their bags to satisfy themselves that no ballot boxes or election materials were being transported.

At some polling stations, vehicles were reportedly denied access until they had been inspected by members of the public.

Beyond the physical presence at polling stations, independent vote verification initiatives also emerged. Opposition supporters livestreamed results from polling stations as counting progressed, while technology innovator Daniel Miringa piloted a citizen-led digital tallying platform that enabled agents to upload photographs of official results forms for verification in real time.

The developments reflected a growing desire among sections of the electorate to independently verify election outcomes rather than rely solely on official declarations by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC).

The irony, however, is that Kenya's electoral framework already contains multiple safeguards intended to protect the integrity of every vote.

Article 81 of the Constitution requires elections to be free, fair, transparent, impartial and accountable, while Article 86 obligates the IEBC to ensure that voting is simple, accurate, verifiable, secure and transparent.

The Elections Act and accompanying regulations reinforce those constitutional principles.

Before polling stations open, IEBC officials are required to present empty ballot boxes to party agents and observers before sealing them. Accredited party agents, election observers and security officers assume their designated roles before voting begins.

Each voter is identified using the Kenya Integrated Election Management System (KIEMS), receives the appropriate ballot paper, votes by secret ballot and places it into the ballot box.

Once polling closes, counting begins immediately at the polling station in full view of party agents and accredited observers. Results are entered into statutory declaration forms, which party agents may sign or decline to sign while recording their reasons.

The results are then transmitted and physically delivered to the constituency tallying centre, where the Returning Officer verifies the figures before declaring the winner. Any candidate dissatisfied with the outcome may challenge the results before an election court.

On paper, the process is designed to ensure that every stage of the election is transparent, verifiable and accountable.

Yet what happened in Ol Kalou suggests that for many Kenyans, legal safeguards alone are no longer enough.

Governance lawyer Peter Wena argues that the problem lies not in the law itself but in public confidence in those mandated to enforce it.

"As per the law, the duty to carry out a credible, free and fair election is vested in the IEBC. The legal framework is sufficient. The challenge is that it is implemented by human beings," he says.

According to Wena, the electoral process extends far beyond polling day.

"Carrying out a free and fair election is not just about counting votes. It includes what happens before voting day, campaigns, and electoral offences such as voter bribery and violence. Whenever such things happen, the IEBC is supposed to take action,” Wena said.

He argues that perceived inaction against electoral malpractices has gradually eroded public confidence in the commission.

"When you see Kenyans now going to the polling stations to say they are going to secure their votes, it is because they have lost confidence in the IEBC. Whether ballot stuffing would actually happen or not is beside the point. The fact remains that citizens have lost confidence in the commission,” he added.

Ironically, Wena notes, Kenya's electoral technology makes some of the fears expressed by voters difficult to realise.

"I do not believe it is easy to stuff ballot boxes because every voter is identified biometrically before receiving a ballot paper and the KIEMS data must correspond with the actual number of ballots in the box,” he said.

Even so, he says, perception matters just as much as reality.

"Perception is everything. Once people perceive that the process is not being conducted properly, they begin looking for ways to protect it themselves,” Wena noted.

Political analyst Martin Andati views the issue differently, arguing that citizens' vigilance should not automatically be interpreted as defiance of electoral law.

"The law gives the IEBC control within a 400-metre radius of the polling station. Outside that, if people feel there is a likelihood that the vote could be interfered with, they have every right to remain vigilant against those kinds of shenanigans," he says.

According to Andati, citizen-led vigilance is not entirely new.

"It is not new. We did the same thing in 2002. What has changed is that people have become more vigilant,” he said.

While the two experts differ on the legality and implications of the phenomenon, they agree on the point that Ol Kalou exposed the extent to which confidence in the electoral process has become as important as the legal framework itself.

For Wena, rebuilding that confidence should now become the commission's foremost priority.

"They need to come out clean and set a clear example through their conduct. Let them be transparent in voter registration, in cleaning up the register and in every action they take towards a credible election. It is not enough to say something. You must be seen to be doing it,” he said.

The by-election has therefore become more than a contest over a parliamentary seat. It has become a referendum on confidence in Kenya's electoral management body.

The Constitution, the Elections Act and technology-backed safeguards provide an elaborate framework for protecting the vote. Yet Ol Kalou demonstrated that for many Kenyans, credibility is measured not only by the strength of the law but also by confidence in the institution entrusted with implementing it.

As the country edges closer to the 2027 General Election, the IEBC faces perhaps its greatest challenge since its reconstitution, not simply administering elections in accordance with the law, but restoring public trust so that voters once again believe the commission alone is capable of safeguarding their vote.