There is something unnerving about a democracy being asked to trust a process it may no longer be permitted to watch. In Kenya, where elections have repeatedly tested the country’s constitutional architecture, the proposal to remove the express legal requirement for livestreaming presidential results has reopened an old wound: the uneasy relationship between political power, public confidence and the sanctity of the vote.
Foreign Affairs Principal Secretary Korir Sing’oei has entered the fray, arguing that livestreaming should be strengthened rather than abandoned. Speaking to NTV, he acknowledged technological glitches and cybersecurity risks but maintained that real-time transmission had helped build public trust and international confidence. His intervention comes as the Elections (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2024, advances through Parliament, proposing changes to Section 39 of the Elections Act. The Senate has approved the Bill, which is before the National Assembly for consideration and concurrence. <Cite refs={[“turn676511search0″,”turn676511search1”]}/>
The legal stakes begin with Article 86 of the Constitution, which requires electoral systems to be accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable and transparent. Article 81(e) similarly demands elections conducted transparently and administered impartially and accountably. These are not decorative constitutional aspirations. They impose substantive obligations on the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC).
Section 39(1G) of the Elections Act currently requires the commission to establish a mechanism for livestreaming results as announced at polling stations. The proposed legislative change would remove that express obligation. Crucially, however, livestreaming is not synonymous with electronic transmission: the former allows the public to witness announcements; the latter relays results through the electoral system. Online publication of result forms offers another means of scrutiny. Removing one safeguard does not automatically abolish the others, but it may narrow public visibility. <Cite refs={[“turn676511search2″,”turn676511search7”]}/>
The courts have already established important boundaries. In Maina Kiai and Others v IEBC and Others [2017] eKLR, the High Court affirmed that presidential results declared at constituency level are final and cannot simply be revised administratively by the commission. The judgment drew upon Articles 86 and 138, reinforcing the principle that the electoral process begins at the polling station and that transparency must accompany the movement of results through the tallying system. <Cite refs={[“turn676511search3”]}/>
More recently, in Okoiti and Others v IEBC and Others [2026] KEHC 13916 (KLR), delivered on 22 September 2026, Justice Gregory Mutai upheld the constitutionality of national tallying while affirming the finality of constituency-declared presidential results. The court also underscored the importance of accessible information, transparent verification and public documentation of discrepancies. The ruling illustrates that national aggregation must not become an opportunity to alter certified constituency figures. <Cite refs={[“turn604652search2″,”turn676511search6”]}/>
The distinction matters. Livestreaming does not itself guarantee electoral integrity: a broadcast can faithfully display an announcement without proving that the underlying figures are accurate. Nor does a technological failure automatically invalidate properly declared results. The legal objective is a system in which records can be compared, discrepancies explained and accountability enforced.
Parliament retains legislative authority, but that authority is constrained by the Constitution. Under Article 24, limitations on rights must satisfy constitutional standards; Article 35 protects access to information, while Article 10 enshrines transparency and accountability as national values. Whether deleting the livestreaming requirement would violate these provisions depends on the amendment’s substance, its practical effects and the adequacy of alternative safeguards.
The political temptation is to treat public scrutiny as an inconvenience. The constitutional obligation is precisely the opposite. Kenya’s electoral institutions should not merely announce that the numbers are correct; they should preserve the means by which citizens can test that assurance.
In an election, darkness is not proof of fraud. But neither is it a substitute for transparency. A democracy confident in its arithmetic should have little to fear from showing its workings.