IEBC sued separately over ballot paper security, campaign finance capping

The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) is embroiled in fresh court battles over ballot papers’ security features and campaign financing.

The first case was filed by the National Reconstruction Alliance Party (NRA), which claimed that the Ethekon-Edung- led commission had allegedly removed security features from the ballot papers.

Its lawyer, Vundi Musyoka, alleged that the commission had initially provided for mandatory security features but, in an addendum, it allegedly relaxed the same.

Vundi insisted that safeguards which included uniquely generated guilloche security patterns integrated with variable data, micro-text incorporating variable data, unique machine-readable QR codes incorporating variable data, and tapered serialisation using multi-colored ink were meant to safeguard the integrity of the election.

“The petition raises serious constitutional questions concerning the obligation of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission to maintain a voting system that is secure, verifiable, transparent and accountable and to put in place appropriate mechanisms to eliminate electoral malpractice,’ said Vundi, adding that if the court did not intervene, the commission would go ahead to procure the contested ballot papers.

“The petitioner does not allege, as a fact, that the respondents intend to facilitate electoral malpractice. Rather, the petition raises the objectively reasonable constitutional concern that reducing previously prescribed anti-counterfeiting and verification safeguards may increase the vulnerability of electoral materials and consequently undermine public confidence in the integrity and verifiability of the electoral process,” he added.

The party wants the court to block the commission from implementing the addendum dated September 17, 2026.

At the same time, it is seeking an order barring IEBC from either varying or relaxing the security features that are contained in the ballot papers.

NRA’s Secretary General Amemba Magufuli, in his supporting affidavit, said that the security features were meant to ensure that the election material was tamper-proof.

He asserted that the party was not interested in the commercial procurement of the ballot papers. Instead, Magufuli said, his party’s concern was the alleged relaxation of the security features that had been previously required.

“To the best of my knowledge, the impugned Addendum does not, on its face, provide a technical assessment demonstrating that the cumulative relaxation of the previously prescribed security features has no adverse effect upon the overall security of the ballot papers,” he said.

As the NRA was filing its case before Justice David Mburu, one Benard Peter was before the Kiambu High Court, challenging IEBC’s Election Campaign Financing Regulations, 2026.

He claimed that the commission had indicated that the campaign period expenditure ought to start six months before the date of the general election.

According to him, the commission left a window for politicians to spend money without proper accounts of the source and how it was spent.

Peter further alleged that the regulations also created a problem, as it allegedly caps the amount a candidate can spend on media publicity but did not factor in media owners’ contributions to a candidate’s campaign.

He said that the formula used is not clear on how it allowed politicians to spend more in some areas while other campaigns were limited.

IEBC set a spending limit of about Sh6.1 billion for anyone intending to vie for the presidential seat in the 2027 General Election, covering a population of about 47.5 million and 585,307 square kilometres. The second schedule of the regulations highlights the county election, covering Governor, Senator, and County Woman Representative.

For each of the three positions, the highest spending limit is in Nairobi, set at Sh181.3 million, followed by Turkana at Sh142 million, then Marsabit at Sh127 million; Wajir with Sh120.7 million, Kiambu follows with Sh110.9 million, then Garissa with Sh106 million.

Among the lowest spending, the IEBC has set limits of Sh28.6 million in Lamu, Sh32.2 million in Tharaka-Nithi, Sh35.6 million in Elgeyo Marakwet, Sh36.6 million in Vihiga, Sh38.1 million in Nyamira and Sh38.8 million in Kirinyaga.

For Members of the National Assembly, the IEBC has set the highest spending limit in North Horr at Sh100.4 million, Wajir South at Sh73 million, Turkana North constituency at Sh59.7 million, some Sh59.4 million in Laisamis, Turkana West at Sh56.3 million, Isiolo North at some Sh53.2 million, and Turkana East at Sh51.3 million.

Among the lowest spending is in Wundayi at Sh15.4, Kangundo at Sh16.7 million, Sh16.74 in Mathioya, Lamu East with Sh16.9 million, Sh17 million Vihiga, Sh17.1 in Emuhaya, Kathiani with Sh17.5 million, Sh17.9 million in Gatundu South, Sh17.6 million in Gatundu North, Rabai with Sh18.1 million, Maara at Sh18.2 million, Sh18.3 million in Changamwe and Sh19.4 for Mvita among others.

The spending limit for the 1,450 County Assembly Ward elections ranges from about Sh15 million to Sh3 million.

At the same time, the IEBC set Sh24.4 billion as the political parties’ spending limit, with the bulk of the money expected to go towards transportation at Sh16.1 billion, advertising and media at Sh2.5 billion, Sh2 billion for election agents and administrative costs at Sh1.2 billion.

Other high spending will be on venues, capped at Sh375 million, for campaign personnel at Sh332.9 million, security at Sh285 million and Sh213.8 million for nomination fees and charges.

The unit cost at each electoral level is therefore determined from the idea quota for population and land area as follows: unit cost for population at each electoral level equals the total average campaign cost at each electoral level less fixed costs times weight of population (70 per cent)/population quota at each electoral level,” the IEBC has explained.

“Absent interim protection, regulated persons may incur irreversible compliance costs, disclose donor information, restructure campaign arrangements and expose themselves to punitive enforcement under a framework whose validity is now squarely before this Honourable Court,” he alleged.