Why the Elections Amendment Bill has sparked confusion over livestreaming

The battle lines for the 2027 General Election are already being drawn in Parliament, as the controversial Elections (Amendment) Bill, 2024 sparks debate over how future elections will be conducted and results communicated to the public.

The Bill, which emerged from the National Dialogue Committee (NADCO) process following the contested 2022 General Election, has triggered public uproar  over claims that it seeks to scrap the statutory requirement for the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to livestream results announced at polling stations.

While the opposition and civil society have warned that any rollback of electoral transparency could undermine public confidence in elections, Parliament has sought to clarify the matter, maintaining that the legal requirement for livestreaming remains intact.

To understand the proposed legislation and the controversy surrounding it, we trace the Bill’s journey from its introduction in the Senate in 2024 to its consideration by the National Assembly, as well as the next steps before it can either be passed into law or rejected.

The Bill, co-sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Aaron Cheruiyot and his minority counterpart Stewart Madzayo, was read for the first time in the Senate on July 8, 2024.

The government-sponsored Bill sought to delete Section 39 of the Elections Act and replace it with a new provision that, among other changes, removed the requirement for the IEBC to facilitate the livestreaming of election results as announced at polling stations.

“The new section has omitted provisions providing for the requirement for IEBC to establish a mechanism for the  live-streaming of results as announced at polling stations to facilitate public information,” read Clause 22 of the Bill, as highlighted in the memorandum of objects and reasons.

The Senate Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs conducted public participation on the Bill between July 8 and July 22, 2024. It was read a second time on November 13, 2024, before being considered by the Committee of the Whole House on December 5, 2024. The Bill subsequently proceeded to the third-reading stage and was passed on the same day.

It was then forwarded to the National Assembly for consideration and concurrence. The Bill was read for the first time in the National Assembly on February 13, 2025, after being introduced by Majority Leader Kimani Ichung’wah.

The National Assembly’s Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, chaired by MP George Murugara, invited Kenyans to submit their views on the Bill on February 18, 2025, giving them 15 days to make submissions.

The public participation process took place alongside consultations on other Bills, placing several legislative proposals before Kenyans during the same period.

After public participation concluded on March 5, 2025, Murugara tabled the committee’s report before the House on August 14, 2025.

The Bill was read a second time in the National Assembly on October 1, 2025. It was later considered again during the second-reading stage on October 1, 2026, according to the chronology outlined in the draft. The proposals sparked debate over several aspects of the electoral process, including voter registration, political party primaries, the right of recall, party nominations, by-elections and the handling of electoral disputes.

Ugenya MP David Ochieng questioned the timing of the proposed changes, arguing that electoral reforms should not be introduced close to a General Election.

“I've been looking at what's being proposed in this Bill, and there's nothing that we didn't know we might need to change in 2022, 2023, 2024, or even 2025. Why must the IEBC wait until the tail end of a Parliament to bring these amendments? You know, the amendments might be good, but people might read sinister motives into them. Why so late in the day? Where have they been that these laws concerning elections are always brought at the tail end of Parliament? ”posed Ugenya MP David Ochieng.

The proposals drew mixed reactions from MPs. While some opposed a proposal to increase the maximum number of voters assigned to a polling station from 700 to 1,000, others backed the proposed scrapping of the degree requirement for MPs and members of county assemblies (MCAs).

“The Bill seeks to strengthen the transmission and declaration of election results  so that our electoral process remains above board and is clear to Kenyans, and so that the results declared at the polling station, as envisioned by the Constitution and our electoral laws, become the final results,” said Ichung’wah.

On voter registration, the Bill proposed that the register remain available for inspection at all times, except during designated periods. It also sought to remove the requirement for the IEBC to participate in political party primaries and revise provisions on the right of recall to align them with the Constitution.

On party nominations, the proposals would give political parties greater flexibility in identifying and nominating candidates for elective and party-list positions.

The Bill also proposed suspending voter registration in an area affected by a by-election, with new registrants barred from contesting in that particular by-election. On electoral disputes, Parliament said the proposed amendments sought to promote substantive justice, fairness and accountability in their resolution.

The Bill also sought to give effect to some of the recommendations and views submitted by the public during the national dialogue process on electoral justice and related matters.

Among its key proposals was a requirement for presidential election results to be tallied, announced and declared, and electronically transmitted before results for other elective positions.

The Bill proposed repealing and replacing Section 39 of the Elections Act, which provides for the determination and declaration of election results.

The proposed new section stated that results announced at polling stations would be final, with presidential election results tallied, announced, declared and electronically transmitted before those of other elective positions.

However, the proposed changes omitted provisions requiring the IEBC to establish a mechanism for livestreaming results as announced at polling stations to facilitate public information.

The Bill also omitted provisions addressing discrepancies between electronically transmitted and physically delivered results. Under the existing provision described in the draft, the result that accurately reflects those tallied, verified and declared at the respective polling station would prevail.

It also proposed removing the provision stating that failure to transmit or publish election results electronically would not invalidate the results as announced and declared.

Further, the Bill proposed inserting a new Section 82A to provide for access to information held by the IEBC. Where such information was required for scrutiny of votes, it would have to be provided within three days in a presidential election and within seven days for other elective positions.

The Bill also proposed amending Section 44 of the Elections Act, which provides for election technology. The amendments sought to vest intellectual property rights in the technology in the IEBC and bar suppliers from providing election technology if they had been found guilty of violating procurement laws or committing a crime anywhere in the world.

The proposed amendments also sought to make the technology accessible and available for scrutiny, subject to applicable laws.

The controversy over livestreaming came to a head on October 22, when MPs considered the Bill at the Committee of the Whole House stage.

Lawmakers allied to the broad-based government defended the move to remove the livestreaming requirement. They argued that deleting Section 39 of the Elections Act, which governs the determination, transmission and declaration of election results, was preferable to introducing amendments to the provision.

They cited the Kriegler Report, released after the 2007/2008 post-election violence, which advised against changing electoral laws within one year of a General Election.

“First, I support the delete because it is premised on a court ruling and all the decisions of the court are part of the law anyway. Secondly, we are just a few months to the general elections and as advised by the Kriegler report, we do not want to be seen as tinkering with a very important section of the Election laws this close to the polls,” said Wajir East MP Aden Daud.

Ichung’wah added: “While the report is not law, it would be foolish of us not to never take recommendations that were considered by those before us...And we start tinkering with substantive electoral laws this close to the elections, we stand accused.”

Minority Leader Junet Mohamed also opposed amendments to the section, warning that changing electoral laws at this stage could spark chaos.

“Changing electoral laws on the eve of the 2007 election is what brought violence. That is when the electoral commission was constituted in a manner not agreeable to all parties. Those are the things that we want to avoid,” said Junet.

Funyula MP Wilberforce Oundo, however, argued that deleting the livestreaming clause failed to address concerns about transparency and the timely declaration of election results.

“Why would Kenyans wait for eight ten days to get Presidential results whereas in a place like in America they get results after 8 hours of voting? Posed Oundo.

The House ultimately voted on the provision before the Bill proceeded to the third-reading stage. The outcome sparked further confusion after Parliament issued an explanation saying MPs had deleted a proposed amendment contained in Clause 22 of the Bill, rather than removing the livestreaming requirement from the Elections Act itself.

Parliament said the distinction meant the existing legal requirement remained unchanged.

“The National Assembly retained the requirement for the IEBC to establish a mechanism for the livestreaming of election results,” Parliament stated .

The Bill now returns to the Senate for mediation. Depending on the outcome of that process, it could proceed towards presidential assent or fail to become law.