Senate, National Assembly clash on proposed electoral law amendments

A heated disagreement has emerged in Parliament over a proposed law meant to hold IEBC officials accountable for election irregularities, including conducting polls in unauthorised areas and delaying the release of results.

The Elections Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2024, developed from the National Dialogue Committee (Nadco) discussions, has stalled after the Senate and National Assembly failed to agree on key amendments.

The Bill initially proposed changes to section 6 of the Elections Offences Act, 2016, introducing penalties for officers who organise elections in polling stations not officially gazetted, or who knowingly manipulate or delay results.

It also aimed to make it a criminal offence for anyone to alter announced outcomes deliberately.

Senators, however, opposed parts of the original draft. They argued that targeting ungazetted polling stations was unnecessary and might duplicate existing legal safeguards.

Instead, they proposed a wider offence criminalising any deliberate interference with, alteration of, destruction of, or concealment of election materials or results, including instructing others to commit such acts.

The National Assembly rejected these revisions and reinstated the original clauses. One restored the offence of holding elections in unpublicised polling stations, while the other reintroduced the crime of deliberately altering or interfering with declared results.

The Senate’s Justice and Legal Affairs Committee reaffirmed its position, stating: “The committee therefore maintained its position that the offence of conducting elections in ungazetted polling stations was unnecessary and that the more appropriate focus is on criminalising deliberate acts of interference with, alteration, destruction or concealment of election materials or declared results.”

Another point of contention is whether delays in announcing results should be considered a criminal act.

MPs argue that accountability is essential, citing Article 138(10) of the Constitution requiring presidential results to be announced within seven days, and section 39(1) of the Elections Act mandating that other results be declared immediately.

Senators dismissed the term “unreasonable delay” as unclear and open to disputes.

They replaced it with a specific offence: failing to announce presidential results within seven days or other results immediately after polls close.

“The committee passed the Bill with amendments which deleted this phrase and instead restated the offence of failing to declare the results of a presidential election within seven days as required under Article 138(10) and failing to declare the results of an election immediately after the close of polling,” the Senate committee noted.

The Bill also raised disagreements over digital and physical campaign offences. Senators proposed including a clause criminalising the use of electronic communication to intimidate voters or candidates.

MPs countered that existing law already covers bribery, undue influence, and voter interference, calling the amendment redundant.

Other Topics To Read

• News
• National
• National Dialogue Committee (NADCO)
• Elections Offences Amendment Bill 2024
• Senate National Assembly clash
• IEBC accountability law Kenya
• ungazetted polling stations Kenya
• election results delay offence
• digital campaign offences Kenya
• Senate
• National Assembly clash on proposed electoral law amendments

Senators defended their approach, arguing that new threats, particularly online harassment and manipulation, are not clearly captured in current legislation.

“While the Act addresses offences such as bribery, undue influence, intimidation and interference with political rights, it does not expressly capture the use of electronic communication as a distinct and emerging mode of interference,” the Senate committee said.

The Elections Offences (Amendment) Bill, 2024, is intended to strengthen accountability in elections by penalising officers who hold unauthorised polls, delay result announcements, or manipulate outcomes.

But the disagreement between the two Houses highlights ongoing debates over how to tighten electoral laws while avoiding duplication, ambiguity, or overly harsh penalties.