Former Law Society of Kenya Chairperson Faith Odhiambo has questioned whether the safeguards set by the High Court will be enough to protect presidential election results from interference during the 2027 General Election.
Odhiambo said the court's latest ruling has drawn an important boundary around the IEBC's role at the national tallying centre, but argued that more safeguards are needed to ensure every ballot and result can be traced and verified throughout the electoral process.
Justice Gregory Mutai, in a judgment delivered on September 22, 2026, dismissed a constitutional challenge to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission's national tallying and verification of presidential results.
The case was filed by Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah and other petitioners, including Wiper leader Kalonzo Musyoka and former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua.
They challenged the legal basis of the national tallying centre and the IEBC's authority to verify presidential results after they had been declared at constituency level.
The petitioners also challenged provisions including Section 39 of the Elections Act and Regulation 83(2) of the Elections (General) Regulations.
Justice Mutai upheld the national tallying and verification system, finding that the IEBC is required to bring together presidential results nationally to determine whether a candidate has attained the constitutional threshold required for election.
Article 138 of the Constitution requires a presidential candidate to secure more than half of all votes cast nationally and at least 25 per cent of votes cast in more than half of Kenya's counties.
The court found that a national tallying process is therefore necessary because the threshold cannot be determined from results in an individual constituency or county.
However, the judge made a distinction between verifying results and changing them.
The court held that presidential results declared and certified by constituency returning officers are final and cannot be changed during the national verification process.
At the national level, the IEBC's role is to add up the figures and establish whether they correspond with the certified constituency results.
The court further directed that certified Forms 34A and 34B, or their successors, displayed at constituency tallying centres should serve as the primary documents for the national aggregation of presidential results.
It also directed that national verification be carried out collectively by the IEBC, with all commissioners taking part and having access to the underlying data.
Candidates' agents and observers should also have real-time access to the same information available to the commission.
The court further required the IEBC to document any difference between electronically transmitted results and physical records, explain how the discrepancy was resolved and make the record public by the time the final presidential result is declared.
Odhiambo said the ruling was important because it limits what officials can do with results already declared at constituency level.
“The High Court has made an important ruling about the 2027 presidential election. In simple words, the court said once a constituency announces and signs its presidential result, nobody at the county office or Bomas should change it. Not the IEBC Chairperson. Not a commissioner. Not an officer. Only a court can change it,” she said.
She said the difference between tallying and verification must remain clear, arguing that the national tallying centre should not become another stage where officials make substantive decisions about constituency results.
“IEBC may add up constituency results and check whether a candidate has met the constitutional threshold for President. It may not use ‘verification’ as an excuse to correct, replace, cancel or secretly alter a constituency result,” Odhiambo stated.
The former LSK chairperson, however, raised concern over what she said was limited attention to the reconciliation of ballots before results are transmitted from polling stations.
She said election officials should be able to account for every ballot issued and explain what happened to each category of ballot during the process.
“The petitioners argued that before results are transmitted, IEBC should clearly account for every ballot paper. How many were issued, used, rejected, spoilt, unused or missing. The Court treated this as an administrative matter for IEBC and Parliament.”
Odhiambo said ballot reconciliation should instead be treated as part of the election's audit trail, allowing the handling of ballots to be accounted for as results move through the electoral system.
She also called for a system that gives candidates' agents access to election information while requiring discrepancies to be recorded and explained before the final presidential results are declared.
“The real test of this judgment will be whether the safeguards work on election night, under pressure, when the country is tense and every number matters.”
Odhiambo said public confidence in the electoral process should come from procedures that can be openly checked rather than assurances that the process is secure.
“Kenyans do not need to be told to trust the process. They need a process that earns trust, one where every form is visible, every number can be checked, every discrepancy is explained, every commissioner sees the same evidence, every agent has access and no official can alter the will of the people in darkness,” she concluded.
The ruling comes after years of legal disputes over the point at which presidential election results become final.
The question became particularly prominent after the 2017 presidential election, when the Supreme Court annulled the election and ordered a fresh poll.
Subsequent legal battles have continued to focus on the transmission, tallying and verification of presidential results.
The 2022 election also highlighted the importance of documentary evidence in the tallying process. According to IEBC data, Kenya had 22,120,458 registered voters and 46,229 polling stations in that election.