Former IEBC CEO James Oswago/ HANDOUT
Former IEBC chief executive officer James Oswago has warned that the commission risks a major logistical challenge if it acquires new electoral technology less than a year before the 2027 General Election.
In an interview with the Star, Oswago said the clock is
already ticking, noting that procuring sophisticated electoral equipment is a
lengthy, highly regulated process.
Oswago also discussed the delayed recruitment of a
substantive CEO at the commission and the political attacks it faces.
The IEBC is currently
facing several challenges in the public eye, including procurement of electoral
technology, internal affairs and the lack of a substantive CEO. How serious are
these challenges?
The commission's biggest challenge is procuring electoral
equipment. Without equipment in place, the election cannot happen. The current
stock of KIEMS kits is not sufficient because the number of polling stations is
expected to increase. IEBC expects to register at least six million more voters
by next year. That means they need to have around 55,000 polling stations. This
poses two challenges.
One: the commission may not have enough of those kits to go
around the polling stations. Two: the shelf life of those kits is four or five
years. It means their shelf life expired last year or earlier this year. Unless
they are refurbished, they may not be able to perform that job.
So, my answer is that, as far as electoral procurement is
concerned, the kits may not be sufficient in quantity given the expansion in
the number of polling stations. Their shelf life has also expired. This is the
real challenge for the IEBC.
Why is the procurement of election technology
always contentious and controversial?
First, the procurement of election technology is time-bound
because the election date is fixed in the constitution. If you don't start the
procurement by a certain time, you cannot finish it in time for the election.
An international procurement of this nature takes about six months. Six months here begins from the development
of the specification to the award of the tender. But this period can be longer.
What are the other reasons?
The obvious one is the tender wars. Sometimes, like now,
there are procurement appeals. Sometimes it goes beyond the public procurement
appeals. It goes to the High Court; it goes to the Court of Appeals. And even
the Supreme Court. So, six months is when the procurement goes through the
normal process. It can take longer because if you go to the High Court, often
you go by the schedule of the High Court. So, it is a critical thing.
It's time-bound, and you are starting a process which you
don't control. In the current scenario, we have not talked about whether this
South Korean firm can or cannot deliver. We have not talked about whether the
specifications are flawed or not. We have not talked about whether those things
are determined to favour a specific person or a specific agent. We are talking
purely in terms of the timeline and the processes. Finally, is the political
interest. Politicians could be making noise out there because they are bidding
for their interest. Depending on what they say, it puts the credibility and
public image of the commission at stake.
Can you advise the
commission to procure a new technology now?
Procuring a new technology less than a year before the 2027
General Election will provide a major logistical challenge to the commission.
First, the data that is stored in the current technology is domiciled
elsewhere. You need to migrate that data into the new technology. And remember,
these technologies are supplied with some licenses. And those proprietary
licenses are in France. We don't know exactly what is in those licenses. It is
possible that in that license they have said that you don't migrate data from
here to there. So, it is a serious matter. I can't comment definitively, but I
can say there is the potential that the migration of data from one technology
to the other could cause problems.
What about the electoral officers? If a new technology is picked, would
the commission have to start training them from the basics?
The training will not
be very different because what you're talking about is transmission, code
identification, political party registration, candidate registration, and
result transmission. Those are not very different. The technology and the
process are always the same. That will not be a very big deal. That will not be
a big factor. Normally, that is provided in the contract that the person who is
providing the technology, otherwise known as the vendor, will also provide
that. That may be provided for. It may or may not be a problem. But you have to
familiarise yourself with the unique properties of the new technology.
How serious is the lack of a substantive CEO,
and how could it affect the operations of the commission in the run-up to the
election?
Remember that the
person who is currently acting CEO, Ruth Kulundu, went to court with the
previous CEO. I'm not sure whether that case is over. I'm not sure whether the
Court of Appeal has pronounced itself on the matter. That is one issue. Another
issue is that it is terrible that the chairman is new and the CEO is acting,
and soon they will have a new CEO. The IEBC Act is very clear. Under the IEBC
Act, the CEO is the head of the secretariat. And it says the commissioners do a
certain job, and their job is oversight, strategy, and supervision. But the job
of running the secretariat is the CEO. In other words, recruiting a CEO and
having a permanent one is of paramount importance for the stability of IEBC.
So, that is a serious issue. I agree.
What should the commissioners
do to earn public trust and ensure credible polls?
Simple. Procure technology in time. Engage stakeholders and communicate effectively to Kenyans. Let Kenyans not speculate and get consumed by what politicians say. Be ahead of the politicians.
