The National Assembly has approved the Elections (Amendment) Bill, 2024, paving the way for changes to the legal framework governing how election results are announced and made available to the public. The proposed changes seek to remove the legal requirement for the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to livestream the announcement of election results at polling stations, a development that could reshape public access to real-time electoral information in Kenya.

The legislative decision places renewed attention on the rules governing election transparency, the role of technology in the electoral process and the responsibility of the electoral commission to ensure that results are communicated in a credible and accessible manner. As Kenya continues to strengthen its democratic institutions, changes to election laws remain significant because they influence how voters, political parties, candidates and observers monitor the electoral process.

The approval of the Bill marks an important step in the legislative process, although the precise legal effect depends on the Bill's final status and the provisions that ultimately become law. The proposed removal of the livestreaming requirement has the potential to change how the public follows the announcement of results at polling stations, where vote counting and the declaration of results are key stages of an election.

Under the existing framework described in the proposal, livestreaming provides a way for members of the public to observe the announcement of results without necessarily being physically present at polling stations. Such access can help voters, political parties, journalists and election observers follow proceedings as they happen. Removing a legal obligation to livestream would mean that the commission may no longer be required by that specific provision to provide the same form of live coverage.

However, the removal of a livestreaming requirement would not automatically mean that the IEBC would stop announcing results publicly or that other transparency safeguards would disappear. The actual implications would depend on the wording of the amended law and the other legal requirements governing the counting, declaration, recording and transmission of election results.

The debate surrounding the proposed amendment highlights the balance lawmakers must consider between the legal obligations placed on the electoral commission and the need to maintain public confidence in elections. Electoral procedures must be practical to administer, but they must also provide sufficient safeguards to ensure that the process is open to scrutiny and that voters have confidence in the declared outcome.

Livestreaming has become an important feature of discussions about electoral transparency in Kenya, particularly following past elections that generated intense political debate over the management and declaration of results. The ability to watch election officials announce results in real time can help the public understand how the process unfolds at polling stations and provide journalists with an opportunity to report developments as they occur.

For many voters, access to election information is an essential part of participating in a democratic process. Citizens want to know how votes are counted, how results are recorded and how the electoral commission communicates the outcome. Technology has increasingly made it possible for people to follow these developments remotely, reducing the need to rely exclusively on information relayed through television, radio, social media or political representatives.

The proposed amendment is therefore likely to attract attention from political parties, election observers, civil society organisations and members of the public who consider livestreaming an important transparency measure. Those concerned about the change may question whether removing the legal obligation could reduce public access to information during the announcement of results.

Supporters of the amendment, on the other hand, may argue that the electoral process should not depend on a single method of communicating information. They may favour a framework that gives the IEBC flexibility to determine the most effective ways to provide accurate and timely results, depending on the circumstances and available technology. However, the arguments advanced by different groups must be distinguished from the actual provisions of the Bill, which determine what the law will require.

The role of the IEBC remains central to the discussion. As Kenya's electoral management body, the commission is responsible for administering elections in accordance with the Constitution and applicable electoral laws. Its work includes overseeing voting procedures, managing the counting and declaration of results, and ensuring that electoral processes comply with established legal requirements.

Any amendment affecting the commission's obligations must therefore be assessed in relation to its broader responsibility to conduct elections that are credible, transparent and accountable. Changes to the method of announcing results may affect public perceptions of the electoral process, even where other legal safeguards remain in place.

Transparency is particularly important during elections because disputes can arise when candidates or political parties question the figures announced by election officials. Providing clear records, making official results accessible and following established procedures can help address concerns before they develop into wider disputes. Where information is difficult to access, rumours and conflicting claims may spread more easily, placing additional pressure on electoral authorities.

Livestreaming can help address some information gaps by allowing viewers to witness proceedings as they happen. Nevertheless, livestreaming alone cannot guarantee the accuracy of election results or eliminate all disputes. Its effectiveness depends on the reliability of the technology, the quality of the footage, the clarity of the information being presented and the existence of proper procedures for verifying and recording results.

Similarly, removing a livestreaming requirement does not necessarily establish that election results will be inaccurate or that the process will become less credible. The consequences will depend on the alternative safeguards available, the accessibility of official results and the ability of independent observers and authorised representatives to monitor the process.

The discussion also raises questions about the use of technology in elections. Digital tools have become increasingly important in communicating information, supporting election monitoring and enabling journalists to report developments quickly. However, technology must be supported by clear regulations, adequate infrastructure and reliable procedures to ensure that it improves rather than complicates electoral administration.

In some areas, internet connectivity, power interruptions and equipment limitations can affect the delivery of live broadcasts. Electoral officials must be able to carry out their duties even when technical difficulties arise. Any legal framework governing livestreaming should therefore consider operational realities while maintaining meaningful transparency and accountability requirements.

At the same time, technological challenges should not automatically be used to dismiss the value of public access to election proceedings. The central question is how the electoral system can remain transparent while allowing officials to manage the practical demands of conducting elections across different parts of the country.

The amendment also places Parliament's responsibility in the spotlight. Lawmakers are expected to examine proposed changes to election legislation carefully, considering their implications for voters, candidates, electoral officials and the country's democratic institutions. When a proposed law affects how election information is shared with the public, the potential impact on transparency and public confidence becomes an important consideration.

Public participation and engagement with relevant stakeholders can help ensure that amendments respond to genuine administrative needs without weakening important democratic safeguards. Political parties, civil society organisations, election observers and ordinary citizens all have an interest in understanding how changes to election laws could affect their ability to follow and scrutinise electoral proceedings.

The timing of the amendment is also significant because election-related legislation often attracts heightened attention as political competition intensifies. Candidates and parties depend on clear rules to understand how elections will be conducted, while voters need confidence that the procedures governing their participation will be applied fairly.

Consistency in the application of electoral laws is therefore essential. Frequent or unclear changes can create uncertainty among stakeholders, particularly if they are not accompanied by sufficient public communication explaining what has changed and how the new requirements will operate.

For the IEBC, any resulting changes would require clear guidance on its obligations when announcing results. Election officials, political parties and observers would need to understand the procedures that apply at polling stations and the methods through which official results can be accessed. Clear communication would help reduce confusion and ensure that all participants understand the rules governing the process.

The public will also be interested in whether other measures will continue to provide access to election results. These could include the availability of official result forms, publication of results through authorised platforms and access for accredited observers and political party agents, depending on the applicable legal framework. The existence and operation of such measures would be important in assessing the practical effect of removing a specific livestreaming obligation.

Ultimately, public confidence in elections depends on more than the technology used to announce results. It also relies on adherence to the law, impartial administration, accurate record-keeping, accessible information and effective mechanisms for resolving disputes. Livestreaming can contribute to transparency, but it must operate alongside these broader safeguards.

The National Assembly's approval of the Elections (Amendment) Bill, 2024, has consequently renewed attention on how Kenya balances electoral efficiency with the public's right to scrutinise the democratic process. The proposed removal of the livestreaming requirement is an important issue because the announcement of results is one of the most closely watched stages of an election.

As the legislative process progresses, attention will remain on the final provisions of the Bill and the procedures that will govern the IEBC's communication of results. The distinction between removing a legal obligation to livestream and eliminating other transparency requirements will be particularly important in understanding the full implications of the proposed changes.

For voters, the central concern remains whether they will continue to have timely and reliable access to information about election results. For the electoral commission, the challenge will be to maintain public confidence while complying with the law and ensuring that results are communicated through credible procedures.