Why opposition is fighting to block presidential results reverification
Politics
By
Kamau Muthoni
| Nov 19, 2025
The opposition wants to restrict the presidential contest to the constituencies.
This move is revealed in a case filed before the High Court by United Opposition leaders Kalonzo Musyoka, Rigathi Gachagua, Fred Matiang’i, Mithika Linturi and Justin Muturi.
In their case, filed before High Court Judge Lawrence Mugambi, the United Opposition Coalition leaders argued that once the results are collated at the polling stations and announced at the constituencies, the national tallying centre ought to adopt the same numbers without alteration or re-tallying.
The petitioners are aggrieved about the centralization of the presidential results verification.
READ MORE
COP30 report reveals how climate change is spreading infectious diseases to new regions
Five things to know about Africa's first G20
COP30: Time to deliver on Africa's climate finance promises
Why Mai Mahiu residents want a share of sand revenue
How Kakamega gold billions will be divided
Questions raised over mysterious Gaza jet with 153 Palestinians at JKIA
Africa's youth aren't copping out; neither should COP30
Let COP30 be the year Africa acts boldly on tackling climate change
At the same time, they want the court to force the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) to gazette all polling stations six months before the general election.
According to them, re-tallying and re-verifying the results at the national tallying centre creates an opportunity for potential manipulation.
Their lawyer, Gitobu Imanyara, stated that with the election being one year and eight months away, his clients are pushing for the commission to deliver an accurate and verifiable election.
Imanyara further stated that the practice adopted by the Ethekon Edung-led commission creates confusion on which of the results announced at the constituencies and those at the national tallying centre is final.
“This practice has resulted in immense confusion, created opportunities for manipulation and has been a primary source of litigation in every presidential election cycle. The current legal framework, particularly Section 39 of the Elections Act, is interpreted and applied by the Respondents to permit this parallel verification process. However, this process is not anchored in the specific provisions of the Constitution, which prescribe a clear and linear pathway for the tallying and declaration of results,” argued Imanyara.
Imanyara said that the commission has allegedly consistently failed to have the results verified at the constituencies before they are transmitted electronically.
Discriminatory practice
He argued that the results of the election of the Members of the National Assembly and the County Women Representatives are final upon declaration by the constituency returning officer; then the presidential votes count should not undergo further verification or alteration at the national level.
“There exists no rational or justifiable constitutional basis for treating the results of the presidential election differently. The constitutional architecture for elections, as outlined in Article 86, is uniform. The creation of a separate, superior process exclusively for presidential results is an arbitrary and discriminatory practice that lacks a legitimate constitutional objective,” he argued.
On the polling stations, Imanyara argued that gazetting them early enough is a safeguard for transparency, public participation and electoral accountability. He stated that his clients accuse the IEBC of having ghost schools as polling stations.
The senior lawyer further stated that the commission repeatedly gazettes the polling stations close to the election, sometimes less than two months before the election.
Similarly, he stated, the voters’ register has allegedly been a recurring source of dispute. Imanyara claimed that the commission had previously published the final register too late in the day saying it should be gazetted at the same time as the polling stations.