SAM'S SENSE: IEBC - Why the silence?

We are now less than nine months away from the next General Election, in what promises to be a bruising political campaign and, potentially, a difficult electoral process.

Politicians are doing what politicians do best: politicking. Causing trouble within their parties, testing alliances, issuing threats and throwing political tantrums, all in the name of jostling for positions and relevance. We will leave that to them.

But as the countdown continues, there is one important player that has been unusually quiet: the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, IEBC.

A few months ago, the commission gazetted the election period, signalling the start of the regulation of political activities. The election calendar is now in the public domain. Yet, there is still much work to be done to build confidence in the new commission.

With less than nine months to the elections, the commission is yet to provide clarity on how it intends to procure critical electoral materials, including ballot papers and election technology, following legal challenges by interested parties.

And if you think that is a major concern, consider the commission's lack of substantive office bearers, particularly at the level of chief executive officer.

The commissioners were expected to interview nine shortlisted candidates for the position this week. But that process was halted by the High Court pending the determination of a petition challenging the recruitment process.

You see, if you have followed elections in this country since 2013, you understand just how consequential the recruitment of an IEBC chief executive can be.

For perspective, no IEBC chief executive since the commission's establishment has completed their tenure without controversy. From James Oswago to Ezra Chiloba and, more recently, Marjan Hussein Marjan, the office has been associated with disputes and difficult exits.

The chief executive is central to the commission's administrative and procurement processes. So, what does the delay in filling this position mean for preparations, and ultimately, public confidence in the 2027 elections?

Yet, the IEBC has had very little to say.

But perhaps the more pressing concern is the commission's engagement with stakeholders and Kenyans at large.

At this stage, there are critical questions that need answers and areas where consensus must be built if the country is to avoid unnecessary disputes during the electoral process.

Take, for instance, the recent debate about transparency in the announcement of election results.

National Asssembly voted to retain provisions in Section 39 of the Elections Act, including those relating to the live-streaming of election results announcements.

Yet, parts of those provisions had previously been declared unconstitutional by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Some politicians, including the President, continued to speak about live-streaming results, even as the legal position surrounding the provision remained contested.

And through much of this debate, IEBC was conspicuously silent. Not a single substantive explanation from Anniversary Towers. Ask why, and you are told that the commission has restructured its communication function, with public communication now subject to approval by its leadership.

But here is the irony.

The IEBC itself submitted proposals to Parliament seeking amendments to the Elections Act, including the deletion of provisions relating to the live-streaming of election results announcements. Its position was informed by the court decisions declaring the relevant provision unconstitutional. Fair enough.

But the commission's own position, as set out in a statement issued on 30th July 2026, also needed public explanation. In particular, the courts had questioned the provision because the live-streamed announcements were intended for public information and could not determine the final declared results.

Why, then, did IEBC choose silence when the country was debating an issue so central to electoral transparency?

The commission may rightly avoid taking positions on matters that are the preserve of Parliament. But it cannot retreat into silence when it has already made submissions on proposed changes to the very law under discussion.

This is not about taking sides. It is about explaining the law, clarifying the commission's position and helping the country have an informed debate.

Silence in such circumstances does not save time. It only leaves room for confusion, speculation and competing interpretations.

And there is another question: how does IEBC build trust with stakeholders if it is not available to answer legitimate media questions?

When the commission engages stakeholders, promises better communication and greater transparency, but then fails to follow through, what should Kenyans expect when the electoral temperature rises and the pressure on Anniversary Towers becomes even greater?

Perhaps controlling communication is seen as a way of avoiding the mistakes of previous commissions, particularly the public divisions that undermined confidence in the institution.

But control is not the same as accountability. And managing communication is not a substitute for engaging the public.

THE I IN IEBC STANDS FOR INDEPENDENT, NOT INDIFFERENT.

Independence does not mean isolation. It does not mean withholding explanations on matters that directly affect public confidence in the electoral process.

The commissioners and staff at Anniversary Towers must ask themselves a few fundamental questions. What exactly is their role in Kenya's democratic journey? How would they like to be remembered when their time in office comes to an end? And when they read Article 10 of the Constitution, particularly the national values of transparency and accountability, what do those principles mean in the way they conduct their business?

Because the credibility of an election is not built on polling day. It is built months, even years, before Kenyans cast their ballots. And that work cannot be done in silence.

That is my sense tonight.