The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) Electoral Code of Conduct Enforcement Committee has ruled that candidates in the Kasipul Constituency by-election must strictly adhere to the harmonized campaign schedule, saying unilateral changes threaten peace and fairness in the poll.
The decision followed a complaint questioning whether a candidate could independently revise their campaign timetable.
The Committee said the issue went to the heart of electoral order and safety.
In its determination, the panel cited Article 84 of the Constitution, which states that “in every election, all candidates and all political parties shall comply with the code of conduct prescribed by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission.”
It also referenced Section 110 of the Elections Act, which obligates all election participants to observe the Electoral Code of Conduct.
This follows incidences of violence as supporters of Boyd Were and Philip Aroko clashed, leading to the death of at least two individuals.
The Committee emphasized Paragraph 6 of the Code, noting that all those bound by it must “co-operate and liaise in good faith with other parties to avoid organizing public meetings, demonstrations, rallies or marches to take place at the same time and venue as similar political events.”
It said the objective of the Code, as outlined in Paragraph 3, is “to promote conditions conducive to the conduct of free and fair elections and a climate of tolerance in which political activity may take place without fear, coercion, intimidation or reprisals.”
The panel linked recent violence in Kasipul to a breach of the harmonized timetable.
“The violence witnessed was largely due to lack of adherence to the harmonized campaign schedule,” the Returning Officer informed the Committee.
He added that after clashes were reported, he convened a security meeting on October 12, 2025 where candidates agreed that any changes to the schedule would only be made when all aspirants were present.
The Committee noted that the first respondent attended this meeting but submitted an updated campaign schedule the following day, 13 October.
It said this action appeared inconsistent with the understanding reached.
“The submission of the updated schedule may not have been done in good faith,” the Committee found, adding that the issue of altering the timetable had been “held in abeyance until all candidates were present.”
The panel also invoked Paragraph 6(k) of the Code, which obligates candidates to “recognize the Commission’s authority in managing an election” and to “implement the orders and/or directions of the Commission.”
It ruled that the first respondent was therefore required to follow the harmonized schedule as directed by the Returning Officer.
While acknowledging that candidates may request changes, the Committee stressed that such revisions must be made collectively.
“In the interest of fairness, good order and peace, this can only be altered by way of consensus of all candidates,” it stated.
The Committee issued three orders, including that all candidates “abide by the harmonized campaign schedule… agreed upon in the presence of all candidates on 10th October 2025.”
It further warned that if clashes occur due to non-compliance, it will exercise enforcement powers under the Elections Act.
