Kenya’s preparations for the August 2027 General Election have triggered a fresh political and legal dispute over one important question: should the public be able to watch election results being announced in real time?
The controversy centres on proposed amendments to the Elections Act and the legal requirement for the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to establish a mechanism for livestreaming results announced at polling stations.
The debate intensified after the Senate considered amendments that would have replaced Section 39 of the Elections Act without expressly retaining the existing livestreaming provision. The National Assembly subsequently deleted the contested clause when it passed the Elections (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2024, on October 22, 2026.
Parliament has maintained that the decision preserved the existing livestreaming requirement. Nevertheless, opposition politicians, lawyers and other stakeholders have continued to demand clarity over the final wording of the law and the safeguards that will apply during the next election.
With the Bill returning to the Senate for consideration of the National Assembly’s amendments, the debate has become an important part of the wider discussion about electoral transparency and public confidence.
What exactly is being debated?
At the centre of the disagreement is Section 39 of Kenya’s Elections Act, which governs the determination, transmission and declaration of election results.
The existing framework requires the IEBC to establish a mechanism for livestreaming results announced at polling stations. These streams are intended to provide public information; they are not, on their own, the legal basis for the commission’s final declaration of an election winner.
The controversy emerged after the Senate-passed version of the Elections (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2024, proposed replacing the section with new wording that did not expressly retain the livestreaming requirement.
Critics argued that removing the explicit wording could weaken a mechanism that allows the public to observe results announcements as they happen.
When the Bill reached the National Assembly, MPs deleted Clause 22, which proposed replacing Section 39. Parliament subsequently said the existing provision, including the livestreaming requirement, had therefore been retained.
The Bill has been referred back to the Senate under Article 110(4) of the Constitution for consideration of the changes made by the National Assembly. Consequently, it would be inaccurate to report that mandatory livestreaming has definitively been abolished.
Why does livestreaming matter during elections?
Livestreaming provides voters, political parties, journalists and election observers with a way to watch results being announced at polling stations.
Its importance lies in public visibility. Rather than relying entirely on statements made by political leaders or officials after the event, viewers can observe the announcement process and compare available information with the official records published later.
This can help people identify questions that require clarification and make it easier for election observers to document what happened at particular polling stations.
However, livestreaming is only one part of an election transparency system. A video feed does not automatically prove that every figure is accurate, that every polling station has been covered or that the final tally is correct.
The value of the process depends on whether it is supported by accessible results forms, reliable transmission systems, proper verification procedures and effective mechanisms for resolving disputes.
A credible election therefore requires several safeguards working together, rather than reliance on a single technology.
Livestreaming is not the same as electronic transmission
One source of confusion in the debate is the difference between livestreaming results and transmitting them electronically.
Although the two processes are connected to election administration, they perform different functions.
Electronic transmission involves sending results through the IEBC’s systems to the relevant election officials and tallying centres. Livestreaming allows members of the public to watch results being announced in real time.
Publishing results forms online is another separate process. It allows interested parties to inspect the figures recorded on official documents and compare them with information from other stages of the tallying process.
These mechanisms can complement one another, but they are not interchangeable.
For example, transmitting results electronically does not necessarily allow the public to watch the announcement at a polling station. Similarly, watching an announcement on video does not, by itself, establish that the figures were correctly entered, transmitted and included in the final tally.
This distinction explains why some lawyers and election stakeholders have called for Parliament to clarify the legal provisions and ensure that public access to results is not left uncertain.
Why politicians disagree over the proposed changes
The issue has generated competing interpretations among government representatives and opposition leaders.
National Assembly Majority Leader Kimani Ichung’wah has rejected claims that MPs abolished the livestreaming requirement. The government’s position is that deleting Clause 22 preserved Section 39 and that the legal requirement remains in place.
Deputy Speaker Gladys Boss Shollei also defended the National Assembly’s handling of the Bill, saying lawmakers had considered the relevant court judgment. Her comments on October 27, however, showed that questions remain about whether the existing provision should be retained or reconsidered through a fresh legislative process.
Opposition leaders and other critics have stressed the importance of maintaining clear legal safeguards for public scrutiny ahead of the 2027 election.
Former Law Society of Kenya president Faith Odhiambo has called for the final version of the Bill to be made available so that Kenyans can understand exactly what has changed. Other political figures have argued that livestreaming should remain a clear obligation rather than a procedure whose implementation could become uncertain.
The disagreement is therefore not simply about whether cameras should be switched on. It also concerns the wording of the law, the responsibilities of the electoral commission and the level of public access guaranteed during the counting and announcement of votes.
The legal questions behind the controversy
The debate has also been complicated by court decisions concerning the legal framework for livestreaming election results.
A High Court judgment delivered on September 22, 2026, upheld the constitutionality of Section 39 and Regulation 83(2) of the Elections (General) Regulations. However, subsequent reporting has highlighted questions about how that judgment relates to earlier appellate proceedings and the provisions Parliament is considering.
The legal position must therefore be assessed using the relevant judgments and the final wording of the legislation, rather than political statements alone.
The fact that Parliament says a provision has been retained does not remove the need to understand how that provision will be implemented. Equally, claims that livestreaming has been scrapped should not be presented as settled fact when the National Assembly has expressly rejected that interpretation.
The Bill’s return to the Senate makes the next stage of the legislative process important. Any final changes will need to be read alongside the applicable court decisions and the constitutional requirements governing elections.
What should Kenyans expect before the 2027 election?
The immediate question is whether the Senate will accept the National Assembly’s amendments or propose further changes.
Beyond that, Kenyans will need clear information about how the IEBC intends to implement the applicable law. This includes which results will be livestreamed, how the public will access the streams, how results forms will be published and what procedures will apply if figures appear inconsistent.
The United Green Movement, associated with former Chief Justice David Maraga, has proposed that the IEBC livestream voter turnout figures, the number of voters biometrically identified and results declarations across all 290 constituencies. This is a proposal from the party, not a confirmed requirement under the current law.
Such proposals demonstrate that the discussion may extend beyond whether livestreaming remains mandatory to the broader question of what information should be available to the public and at which stages of the election process.
The IEBC will also need to communicate clearly with political parties, observers, the media and voters to reduce confusion and ensure that the rules are understood before polling day.
A debate about trust, not just technology
Livestreaming election results has become a major political debate because the issue touches on transparency, legal accountability and public confidence in democratic institutions.
Supporters see real-time public access as an important safeguard that allows people to observe the announcement process. Government representatives, meanwhile, maintain that the existing requirement has been preserved through Parliament’s amendments.
The way forward requires a clear legal framework, accessible official records, reliable technology and consistent communication from the electoral commission.
Ultimately, livestreaming alone cannot guarantee a credible election. But neither should its role be confused with electronic transmission or the publication of results forms. Each mechanism has a distinct function in allowing results to be scrutinised.
As Kenya approaches the 2027 General Election, the central question is whether the final legal framework and its implementation will give voters and observers clear, reliable ways to follow how results are announced, recorded and verified.
For Kenyans, the issue is bigger than cameras and internet connections: it is about knowing what the law requires and having confidence that the election process can be scrutinised openly.
