can the legal framework in tallying and …a presentation by immaculate kassait m.b.s, . director...

CANTHELEGALFRAMEWORKINTALLYINGANDTRANSMISSIONOFRESULTSUBSTITUTETRUST?A

CASESTUDYOFKENYA.

APRESENTATIONBYIMMACULATEKASSAITM.B.S,DIRECTORVOTEREDUCATIONANDPARTNERSHIP

INDEPENDENTELECTORALANDBOUNDARIESCOMMISSION

ATTHE5TH ANNUALMEETINGOFTHEID4AFRICAMOVEMENT

17-20JUNE2019

JOHANNNESBURG

SOUTHAFRICA

Content

• AboutIEBC;• Data;• LegalFramework andchangesovertheyears;• AdministrativeFramework;• Collectionofresultsovertheyears;• ApplicationofTechnologyovertheyears;• Challenges;• Conclusion;• Recommendations.

About IEBC

The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) isestablished under Article 88 of the Constitution of Kenya andoperationalized by the IEBCAct, 2011.

The Commission is responsible for conducting or supervising referendaand elections to any elective body or office established by theConstitution, and any other elections as prescribed by an Act ofParliament.

Data

YEAR Counties/Provence

Constituencies Wards PollingStations

RegisteredVoters

ElectivePositions

Number ofCandidates

NumberofKIEMs/Gargets

2017 47 290 1450 40,883 19.7M 6 14,542 45,000

2013 47 290 1450 30,983 14.3M 6 12,000 34,000

2010 8 210 2533 27,915 12.6M 1issue 2sides 21,000

NumberofVotersElectronicallyIdentifiedDuringtheGeneralElectionandFreshPresidentialElection

Election Number of votersbiometrically identified

Number of voters verifiedusing presiding officeraccount

Total votersElectronically verified

8th August 2017 (GeneralElection)

13,616,129 1,025,844 14,641,973

26th October 2017(Fresh PresidentialElection)

7,364,360 211,446 7,575,806

Deployment ofElectronicResultsTransmission

• ThefirstofitskindinKenyaandregions,publicwereabletosimultaneouslyreceiveresultsfromthescreenassentfromPollingstations;

• Highlylaudedbystakeholdersincludingmedia;

• Therewasnolegalframeworktogoverntheprocess.

• Formedthebasisforsubsequentby-electionand2013GeneralElections.

• 2009-2010- ImplementationofelectronicTransmissionofProvisionalResults(ETR).

• Guaranteedtransparencyandspeedintransmission.

• Useoflaptopsandmobiletelephonenetwork.

• Transmissionrangedfrom40%-100%.

Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission 7

Electronic Transmission of Provisional Results (ETR)

The ETR system used by IIEC in 2010/11 consisted of threecomponents namely;

1. Results Transmission2. Telecommunication/Connectivity component3. Results Presentation

ETR was first tested during the South Mugirango by-election on June 10, 2010 and subsequently used inStarehe, Makadara, Juja, Wajir South, Kirinyaga Central andIkolomani by-elections.The system fostered public trust by enhancingtransparency in the electoral process.During August 4th, 2010 Referendum, the Commissiondeployed 21,000 Nokia 1680 mobile phones for resulttransmission.Each polling centre was given a mobile phone to transmitthe provisional results to their respective Tally Centers andthe National Tally Centers.

Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission 8

RTS:Components

Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission 9

InteractiveVisualizationofResults- Presidential

LegalFrameworkEvolutionfromGeneralitytoDetails2017

• OnlinepublicportalmaintainedbytheCommission;

• Durationfordeclaration7days;• Integratedtechnology;• Specifications;procurement,testing,verification,systemaudit,datastorage/retentionaccesstosoftware/sourcecodes,capacitybuilding,telecommunicationnetwork,disasterrecovery,technicalcommittee;

• Complementarymechanism.

• ElectionsActof1969Repealed2011;

• 2011- 6electionsonthesameday;• 2016-verificationofbiometrics;• Number0fvotersperstation-700;• Sequencingofresultswhenreporting;

• Presidentialresults–electronicallytransmittedinprescribedform;

• Tallyingandverifyingresults.

2017GeneralElections

Counting,tallying,announcement, declarationofresults

Verificationofvoters,Publicportal(accessallresults),results postedoutsideallpollingstation,resultsscannedandsent

AdoptionofElectionResultsManagement Framework

Carbonated Forms,Chainofcustody,trainingandexamining

Technology KenyaIntegratedElectoralManagementSystem(KIEMS).

In2016- Clamorforelectoralreformresultedin.

ReconstitutionoftheCommissionChangesElectoralLaw

Keyfeaturesof2017GeneralElections•Verydetailsadministrativeandlegalframeworks-specifications,integratedsystem,stakeholderengagement.

•Morelegalchallengestotheresultssystem-MainaKiaiand2OthersvsTheIEBCandAnotherNairobiHighCourtPetitionNo207of2016 -CourtofappealrulesnoroomforProvisionalresults.

• Implication-eveniftherewerevisiblearithmeticerrors-NationalTallyingcentrecouldnotamend.

QuestionstoReflecton?

•DidthislevelofdetailintheAdministrativeandlegalframeworkmakeiteasierfortheCommissiontodeliverelection?

•Didelectionbecomemorecomplex?•Didthisenhancetrust?

• The Chairperson announces and declaresthePresidentialElectionresults

• The Chairperson issues certificate Form34Dtothewinner

• Commission adoptsthe PresidentialElectionResults34C

• Validation Team compares Form 34Cagainstthe34Bs

• Validation Team hands 34C to theCommission

• CollationTeam(B)compilesForm34CfromForm34BsdownloadedfromFTP;• CollationTeam(B)comparesForm34AsgeneratedfromKIEMSwith34Bdownloaded

fromFTP;ifthereareanyvariances,theyarenoted;• CollationTeam(B)completesForm34Cwiththecountypercentages;• Collation Team (B) prints Form 34C, and forwards to the Internal Auditors with the

Form34Bs.

• Confirmation Team (A) to receive, download andprintForm34BsfromtheFTPandencryptedemails

• Confirmation team (A) compare soft copy FTP 34BtransmittedbyROandprintedForm34B;

• RO calls to confirm the authenticity of thetransmitted;

• Confirmation team (A)handsoverhardcopy34B tocollationteam

NATIONALTALLYINGCENTRERESULTSWORKFLOW

TeamB1 TeamB2 TeamB3

TeamB5 TeamB6TeamB4

• Chief Agents ofPresidential Candidates(onepercandidate)areallowed to observe theNTCproceedings

PerformanceComparisons:ETR;Byelections;2010Referendum;2013GE:2017GE;2017FPE

15

100

80

44.56

RTS/ETR COMPARISONS

By-election Referendum

2013GE 2017GE

2017FPE

KEY: BLUE :BY-ELECTIONS 2010; ORANGE: REFERENDUM 2010; GREY:GENERAL ELECTIONS 2013 YELLOW GENERAL ELECTIONS 2017 BLUE FPE

ContestedResultsyetAgain???

• Despitethedetaillegalreformandwatertighttechnologyandadministrativemeasuresexamples- trainingofstaffcarbonatedresultclarifyoncustodyofdocumenttimelinessdeclarationofresultsbyRetuningOfficer(MainaKiai)

• AftertheAugust2017election,theOppositionfiledapresidentialpetitionattheSupremeCourtwhichbyamajoritydecisionannulledthepresidentialelectionon1stSeptember2017.

• Reasonsforannulment- illegalitiesandirregularitiescommittedduringthetransmissionofpresidentialresults.

• SupremeCourtdirectedIEBCtoconductafreshpresidentialelectionwithin60daysasstipulatedunderArticle140(3)oftheConstitution.

Challenges

2013GeneralElection

² At the point of training, the system was not ready thus leading toinadequate cascaded training of users.

² The was no adequate mapping of network Connectivity thusresulting in challenges in remote areas.

² Due to competing priorities we lack sufficient time to collect GPSCoordinates for timely network mapping by network serviceproviders.

² Lack of infrastructure for EVID leading to re-allocation of RTSserver.

² Conflict of interest from Next technologies.² Obsoleteness of equipment warehouse challenges.² Cost of elections going up.

2017GeneralElectionsandFPE

² Time to procure, install, test, and commission technology dueto late enactment of laws:

² Late adoption of election technology;² Inadequate service level agreement with service providers;² Court cases challenges that concluded late in the day and

affected the design of the system;² Vendor wars leading to procurement challenges;² 0ver 10,000 polling station lacked network coverage;² Over dependant on technology as a solution to trust;² Highly polarized political environment;² Inadequate communication strategy especially on post results

announcement;² Obsoleteness of equipment warehouse challenges;² Cost of elections going up;² Mistrust and propaganda around final results.

Conclusion• FromtheKenyanexperiencetechnologydoesnotcomeintoreplaceconcernsonabsenceoftrust,transparencyandintegrity;

• Theissueofcontestedelectionresultshavebeenwithusforovertwodecadeswiththeexceptionof2002GE,2005and2010referendum;

• Whataretheunderlyingcausesofthediscontent?• Technicalorlegitimacy?HastheKenyanelectoralsystemplayedapart?

• WhatcantheEMBdotoshielditselffrombeingthepunchingbag?

Recommendations• BeforeimplementingResultsTransmissionSystemanEMBneedsto;

• Undertakeanassessmentofitspoliticalenvironment;

• HaveawellthoughtanddocumentedElectionsResultsmanagementFramework(ERMF);• Typeoftechnologytobeadoptedshouldbeinformedby:

• connectivityinfrastructure;• ResourcesFinanceandhumanresource;• Longevityoftheutility(obsoleteness);• Servicelevelagreement

• Stakeholdersneeds;typeoftechnologyavailableandresultsprocessPoliticalparties,Judiciary.

• Timelylegalreform;

• Mitigatelonglegalbattle(vendorwars);

• Capacitybuildingofyourstaff;

• Investonvotereducationpriorduringandafterelectionstodemystifytechnologyandelectoralresults.

Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC)

Address: University Way, Anniversary Towers, 6th Floor

P.O Box 45371 - 00100, Nairobi, Kenya.

Phone: (254) 020 2769000, fax: (254) 020 2219185

Email: info@iebc.or.ke, website: www.iebc.or.ke

Thank you