IEBC Selection Panel on the spot for secretly adding six candidates
The alterations, made just days before the scheduled interviews, have drawn widespread criticism and prompted questions regarding the integrity of the recruitment process.
The Commission on Administrative Justice (CAJ), also known as the Office of the Ombudsman, has given the IEBC Selection Panel seven days to explain the controversial inclusion of six additional candidates on the list of those shortlisted for commissioner positions.
The move has triggered public outcry and raised concerns about transparency and fairness in the electoral recruitment process.
More To Read
- Commission demands answers as three die due to alleged oxygen disruption at Coast General Hospital
- Ombudsman suspends summons against JSC members, seeks constructive dialogue
- Judiciary fights back against CAJ's summons over complaints disclosure
- Ombudsman asks SHA to respond to query on Sh7.3bn disbursements to hospitals
The six individuals added to the list are Hassan Noor Hassan, Jibril Maalim Mohamed, Michael Ben Ollewo, Charles Kipyegon Mutal, Stephen Kibet Ngeno, and Joel Mwita Daniel.
According to the CAJ, these names did not feature in either the original shortlist. The alterations, made just days before the scheduled interviews, have drawn widespread criticism and prompted questions regarding the integrity of the recruitment process.
“It is worth noting that on March 14, 2025, the Selection Panel published a shortlist naming 11 candidates for the position of Chairperson and 105 individuals for appointment as members of the Commission. However, on the same day, the Panel issued an addendum adding two more candidates for the Chairperson role and 26 additional names for commissioner positions, without offering any explanation for these additions,” said the CAJ in a statement.
On March 25, just days before the interviews were to commence, the Panel released an updated list of shortlisted candidates for the position of commissioner.
The revised list included the original 105 candidates, the 26 from the earlier addendum, and six additional names which had not appeared on any previous lists.
In response, in a letter dated April 16, 2025, CAJ Chairperson Charles Dulo wrote to the Chair of the IEBC Selection Panel, Dr Nelson Makanda, requesting that he address public concerns regarding the addition of these candidates to the shortlist.
Dulo emphasised that any deviation from the constitutional and legal framework guiding the appointment process, as outlined in Articles 10, 88, and 250 of the Constitution and the IEBC Act, 2011, could constitute a breach of the law.
“In line with our constitutional mandate to promote good governance, adherence to the rule of law, and in recognition of the MoU objectives between the CAJ and IEBC, the Commission draws attention to Articles 10, 88 and 250 of the Constitution of Kenya, which govern the establishment, composition, and appointment processes of constitutional commissions, including the IEBC,” stated Dulo.
The Commission specifically requested an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the inclusion of the six additional candidates. “The Commission has given the panel undertaking the selection of electoral commissioners seven (7) days to explain the reasons for the inclusion of six additional candidates from the original list.”
The CAJ also asked for clarification on why these six individuals, who were part of the 1,356 applicants published on March 6, 2025, were not included in the initial shortlist or the addendum, and why they were omitted at those stages.
Furthermore, the Commission requested a description of the criteria and process used to select these six candidates, and whether this process was consistent with the standards applied during the initial selection phase.
Additionally, the CAJ sought an explanation for the issuance of the addendum on March 14, which introduced two further candidates for the Chairperson role and 26 for the commissioner positions.
The Commission also requested a timeline indicating when the decision to include the six additional candidates was made, and under whose authority their inclusion was approved.
It also questioned whether any formal public notice or communication had been issued to explain these changes.
If not, it asked for an explanation as to why such disclosure was not made, and further requested details on the measures put in place to ensure transparency, fairness, and equal opportunity for all applicants, particularly in light of the last-minute changes.
Top Stories Today
