MP's move to block presidential results livestreaming draws backlash

Parliament passed the Elections (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2024, removing the express legal requirement for the IEBC to livestream election results from polling stations. Livestreaming had been treated as a public safeguard, allowing citizens to watch results as they were handled and announced. The change matters because opponents fear less visibility could weaken electoral transparency and accountability.

Martha Karua called the decision a troubling signal and linked it to Article 81 of the Constitution. That article requires elections to meet standards including transparency, accuracy and accountability. David Maraga also said the electoral system must be accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable and transparent. He urged the IEBC to publish results online as they arrive.

The amendment has not ended the political dispute. Taifa Mpya threatened nationwide demonstrations, while Faith Odhiambo asked Parliament to publish the approved Bill and clarify whether the livestreaming removal remained in the final text. The debate now reaches toward the 2027 election.

Livestreaming election results means transmitting a live video or digital feed from a polling station so people can observe results as they are processed and announced. Instead of relying only on later reports, citizens could follow events remotely. The article presents this as a transparency safeguard, especially for people unable to attend polling stations physically.

For example, a polling station could show officials handling result forms and announcing the figures, while viewers watch through an online stream. The key mechanism is immediate public visibility. Citizens, parties and observers could compare what they see with later figures and identify apparent differences for scrutiny. The article does not specify the technology or exact broadcast procedure.

The proposed change removes the IEBC’s express legal duty to provide that stream. Caleb Amisi said livestreaming would help Kenyans, including those in the diaspora, know what is happening. Opponents therefore see the change as reducing direct observation before the 2027 General Election.

Livestreaming can help citizens check accuracy by giving them a contemporaneous view of how results are handled and announced. Viewers can compare the figures shown at a polling station with results later published or included in the national tally. This creates an evidence trail and supports scrutiny when figures appear inconsistent.

For example, party agents or observers could record a station’s announced total from the livestream, then compare it with the figure posted online or used during tallying. The mechanism is comparison across stages. A mismatch would not automatically prove wrongdoing, but it would identify an issue requiring explanation or verification. The article specifically links this visibility to transparency, accountability and verifiability.

David Maraga urged the IEBC to publish results on its website as they are received. That would extend checking beyond physical facilities. Critics fear removing the legal livestreaming duty could reduce this visibility before the August 10, 2027 General Election.

A national results process is distributed across many polling stations, then brought together into wider totals. Citizens would therefore be monitoring numerous local announcements rather than one single count. Results involving voters abroad would add another stream that people may want to follow. The article describes this broad public interest but gives no total number of polling stations or overseas voters.

The practical mechanism is comparison. People could watch or record station-level announcements, compare them with figures later published by the IEBC, and follow how totals move through the tallying process. Parties and observers could conduct parallel checks. Because the process spans many locations, public access would make local information available beyond each station.

The article’s debate concerns whether livestreaming remains a legal duty, not whether every result would necessarily be watched by everyone. Maraga called for website publication as results arrive, while Amisi stressed access for Kenyans in the diaspora. The exact monitoring scale remains unstated.

The IEBC is Kenya’s electoral body. In this debate, it is the institution whose legal duty to livestream results Parliament proposes to remove. The article also places the IEBC at the centre of receiving results, publishing them online and assuring Kenyans that elections are free and fair.

Its authority operates through the official results process: results come from polling stations, are received by the commission, and are used in tallying and announcement. Established Kenyan electoral practice gives the IEBC responsibility for administering elections and declaring official results. The article does not spell out every constitutional or statutory step, so the exact powers beyond this process are not detailed here.

David Maraga demanded that the IEBC publish results on its website as they arrive. Caleb Amisi opposed removing livestreaming and said citizens should know what is happening. The dispute is therefore about how much public access accompanies the IEBC’s official role before the 2027 election.

The 2007 election is being mentioned because Kenya’s disputed results were followed by violence. David Maraga used that history to warn against weakening electoral accountability. His point is that public confidence and visible safeguards matter especially when election results are contested. The memory gives the current legal dispute a serious historical context.

Maraga specifically warned against a return to the era of the former Electoral Commission of Kenya. He said the Constitution requires an electoral system that is accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable and transparent. In that framework, livestreaming and timely publication are presented as ways to make the process easier to examine.

The article does not claim that removing the livestreaming requirement would cause violence. It reports that critics fear weaker transparency before the August 10, 2027 General Election. Maraga’s reference to 2007 is therefore a warning about consequences associated with disputed elections, not a prediction of what will happen.

Public verification is foundational because elections give leaders authority through citizens’ votes. If people cannot examine how votes are counted and announced, they must rely almost entirely on officials’ assurances. Visible procedures allow citizens, parties and observers to assess whether results appear accurate, verifiable and accountable. That strengthens confidence in the outcome, even when disagreements remain.

The article gives a practical example. Livestreaming could show what happens at polling stations, while website publication could let citizens follow results as the IEBC receives them. People could compare station announcements with later figures. These checks do not automatically prove every result is correct, but they create opportunities to detect and question inconsistencies.

That is why Karua cited Article 81’s standards of transparency, impartiality, accuracy and accountability. Faith Odhiambo said citizens should not simply trust officials without adequate scrutiny. The proposed change has intensified opposition, with Maraga, lawyers and civil society warning about the 2027 election.