A fierce legal contest is taking shape over the future of the national tallying centre, with the electoral commission and lawmakers closing ranks to defend it against a petition seeking its removal before the 2027 General Election, in a dispute that could redefine how presidential results are confirmed and announced.
The case has been filed by Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah together with a group of opposition leaders, challenging Section 39 of the Elections Act and the regulations that guide the handling of presidential results.
The petition raises questions on whether the tallying centre is a lawful verification stage or an extra layer that goes beyond what the Constitution allows.
At the heart of the petition is the claim that the system creates an additional step after results have already been declared at the constituency level. The petitioners are also contesting the roles assigned to county returning officers and the chairperson of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, arguing that the current framework weakens the finality of constituency results.
In submissions before the court, Omtatah argues that the Constitution confines the counting and declaration of presidential votes to polling stations and constituencies. He maintains that the role of the IEBC chairperson is limited to collecting and announcing results without interfering with them in any way.
“The national tallying centre purports to verify, re-tally, alter, or otherwise interfere with results already declared at the constituency level,” Omtatah states in his submissions. “This introduces an extra-constitutional layer that breeds disputes and mistrust.”
The electoral commission has pushed back strongly against these claims. IEBC Chairperson Erastus Ethekon describes the assertions as “fallacious” and says the law clearly allows the commission to confirm the accuracy of results before the final declaration.
“The national tallying centre does not ‘alter’ or ‘manipulate’ results but verifies scanned Forms 34A and the tallied 34B (constituency tallies) against originals for accuracy, as mandated by law,” Ethekon states.
He explains that results announced at the constituency level remain unchanged, but the national process ensures that what is presented reflects the original documents. According to him, the chairperson’s role is to “accurately tally all the results exactly as received” and confirm if a candidate has achieved the constitutional threshold required to be declared president.
Parliament has also entered the dispute, backing the existing legal structure. National Assembly Clerk Samuel Njoroge says the law provides a clear and open system for managing presidential results, adding that Parliament acted within its mandate when it established the framework.
He further argues that the matters raised in the petition are already being handled through the Elections (Amendment) Bill, 2024, warning that court intervention at this stage could disrupt that process.
The Senate, through Clerk Jeremiah Nyegenye, has taken a similar position, stating that the issues raised can be addressed through legislative channels rather than through the courts.
Recognising the weight of the matter, the electoral commission has asked the court to assign a bench of multiple judges to hear the case. Omtatah, however, maintains that the tallying centre has in the past fuelled disputes and mistrust, and is calling for a return to a fully decentralised system.
The case is scheduled for hearing on July 1.