Arrow Left Arrow Right Camera icon set icon set Ellipsis icon set Facebook Favorite Globe Hamburger List Mail Map Marker Map Microphone Minus PDF Play Print RSS Search Share Trash Twitter Video Camera Youtube
Kenya: A Historic Decision, A Tough Road Ahead
Kenya: A Historic Decision, A Tough Road Ahead
Kenya Should Come Together After its Contested Elections
Kenya Should Come Together After its Contested Elections
Judges sit in court as President Uhuru Kenyatta's election win was declared invalid in Nairobi, Kenya, on 1 September 2017 REUTERS/Baz Ratner
Statement / Africa

Kenya: A Historic Decision, A Tough Road Ahead

Kenya’s Supreme Court decision to annul the 8 August presidential election is bold and historic, but the path ahead will be fraught. A successful rerun within 60 days will need compromise on a better electoral commission, more accountable policing and more effective management of the high-stakes vote.

The 1 September decision by Kenya’s Supreme Court to annul the results of the 8 August presidential election and order a fresh vote was at once unexpected, historic, bold and – by African and almost any other standard – unprecedented. The judgment compels many – Kenya’s political leaders, of course, but also members of the international community – to engage in some introspection. Most urgently, it requires both local and international actors to take urgent steps to ensure that the integrity of the forthcoming election is protected and that both the period leading up to the vote and its aftermath are peaceful.

By a 4-2 majority, the court found that the electoral commission had failed to comply with the “dictates of the constitution and the applicable principles” in conducting the poll, rendering the elections “invalid, null and void”. The incumbent, President Uhuru Kenyatta, whom the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission had declared the winner, will now have to take part in a new election to be held within 60 days. In the next three weeks, Supreme Court judges will issue a full judgment outlining the reasons behind their decision.

[President Kenyatta] blamed the judges for attempting to “overturn the will of the people”, and subsequently asserted that the country had a problem with the judiciary that ought to be “fixed”.

Unsurprisingly, strongholds of opposition leader Raila Odinga in Nairobi, Western Kenya and in the port city of Mombasa celebrated the decision. Odinga himself welcomed the judgment, calling it “a historic day for the people of Kenya, and by extension the people of Africa”. Initially, President Kenyatta struck a conciliatory tone, coupling disagreement with the decision alongside a commitment to respect it. That shifted over time, however. At a rally following the court’s decision, he blamed the judges for attempting to “overturn the will of the people”, and subsequently asserted that the country had a problem with the judiciary that ought to be “fixed”.

Kenyatta’s more ominous tone is but one of the many challenges ahead as Kenyans embark on the perilous task of delivering a relatively smooth poll within two months.

Improving election supervision

At the centre of the looming battle, and by far the trickiest and most divisive issue, is the fate of the electoral body, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, (IEBC), which was criticised by the judges for committing “irregularities and illegalities” in running the 8 August election. Odinga’s National Super Alliance (NASA) coalition is demanding wholesale changes in the commission’s secretariat and the resignation of six officials, including Ezra Chiloba, the Commission’s chief executive officer. Conversely, Kenyatta’s camp has signalled it would resist any such change. On 2 September, Deputy President William Ruto ruled out altering the IEBC’s composition, accusing the opposition of not being ready to take part in the rerun.

Reaching an acceptable resolution will require compromise on both sides, not belligerent rhetoric.

That there were problems with the IEBC systems seems beyond dispute, as Crisis Group warned last March and as the Supreme Court found. Some change therefore will be needed if confidence in the electoral process is to be restored. But reaching an acceptable resolution will require compromise on both sides, not belligerent rhetoric. The opposition and government should immediately begin talks on this matter and seek a pragmatic solution that can be implemented in the tight statutory timelines. Odinga has offered a possible way forward: to get members of parliament to work in a bipartisan manner and agree on the appointment of officials who will conduct the rerun. At a minimum, this is a positive signal, but whatever changes are made should include a rapid assessment of what went wrong during the 8 August election as well as implementation of safeguards to avoid a repeat of those failures. In the absence of an agreement, religious leaders and diplomats with leverage over key actors should step in to broker an acceptable compromise, as they did in October 2016 when the opposition led protests to oust commissioners that presided over the 2013 election.

Ultimately, going into the new election, the IEBC should heed Chief Justice David Maraga’s clear admonition: elections are a process, not a single event, and should strictly adhere to the constitution and statutory processes at every stage. In particular, they should ensure that the expensive electronic system procured to improve transparency in transmission of results is deployed effectively and results posted without undue delay. Unexplained delays in releasing returns from tallying centres underpinned early opposition complaints over the 2017 vote.

Ensuring effective, non-partisan policing

If the electoral commission fared poorly in the elections, police forces did no better.  Security forces brutally cracked down on protesters in the aftermath of the voting, with at least 24 Kenyans killed by the police, including a six-month old baby. As an immediate step, the Independent Policing and Oversight Authority (IPOA), the state agency charged with investigating police excesses, should expeditiously probe the killing of innocent civilians and bring charges against suspects. This, combined with a clear statement by the authorities that such behaviour is unlawful and perpetrators will be held to account, should help deter similar behaviour in the run-up to, and aftermath of, the new elections. 

In the longer term, far deeper reforms of the security forces will be needed, involving in particular greater investment into training for conflict-sensitive policing.

The role of observers

Observer missions were not spared by Kenyans unhappy with their elections. In reality, observers for the most part made their preliminary statements with caveats, underscoring that they were but initial assessments of voting and counting. Few of those statements could be read as ringing endorsements of the polls, while most highlighted significant flaws. Some observers subsequently took the unusual step of criticising the lack of transparency and speed in tallying of the results. None dismissed Odinga’s complaints, instead calling on him to pursue them through the courts not the streets, which, to his credit, he did, with the stunning results we now know.

That only goes so far, however. The impression created, by the statements themselves and by observers’ other pronouncements, was that results were accurate, and it was time to move on.

As the Supreme Court explains its reasoning, and more facts come in, there are lessons to be learned by all ahead of the next round. The timing and tone of preliminary statements after a complex and tense election always poses dilemmas for observers.  Early statements risk precipitous and flawed assessments, with consequences for observers’ credibility. But they can also calm jittery nerves. In 2007, the European Union delayed its statement by a few days, but was criticised at the time for reinforcing the sense of uncertainty that played into the post-election violence. As in all such circumstances, parties that were involved – such as observer missions and independent organisations, Crisis Group included – stand to gain by engaging in a measure of introspection and lessons learned. 

There is, particularly among opposition ranks, understandable anger [...] at the international observers’ performance.

There is, particularly among opposition ranks, understandable anger, justified or not, at the international observers’ performance. Yet all Kenyan leaders should hold their fire.  Observers, like the media and outside organisations, can play a central role in deterring abuse and in improving the atmosphere in heavily polarised environments marked by low trust in public institutions. Their voice in what is likely to be a fraught campaign and poll over the coming weeks will be critical. In this context, observer missions will need to redouble efforts to define precisely and with greater clarity their conclusions in all public statements.

The Supreme Court’s decision represents a victory for the independence of Kenya’s judiciary and the rule of law. The onus now shifts to the country’s politicians, and to those in the international community with influence over them, to act responsibly so that Kenyans can witness a smooth, peaceful and credible vote by the end of October.  

Polling station officials count the ballots at a polling station in Archers Post, Samburu County, in Kenya on 8 August 2017. AFP/Cyril Villemain
Statement / Africa

Kenya Should Come Together After its Contested Elections

Contrary to the deadly election of 2007, Kenya’s pivotal and highly-anticipated 2017 national and local polls passed without major outbreaks of violence. But in order to build on this achievement, Kenyans must take further steps to overcome ethnic divisions and work toward greater national unity and inclusive governance.

Despite claims of irregularity and the continuing risk of unrest, Kenya’s pivotal national and local elections on 8 August passed off in a largely peaceful manner. Millions of voters braved the elements and long queues, turning out to elect their representatives in an orderly fashion and, in so doing, demonstrating faith in their democratic system. This is an achievement that now must be protected and fortified.

The vote in one of Africa’s major democracies was fraught with danger, as Crisis Group has documented. A history of election-related violence, ethnic divisions and high stakes made for a potentially explosive combination. The world was watching closely, sending more than 5,000 foreign observers, drawn from all major regional and international organisations. In the end, all of these missions, including the African Union, the East African Community, the Carter Center, the European Union (EU), the National Democratic Institute and the Commonwealth expressed confidence in the electoral process and praised it as broadly credible. The expensive electronic system designed to curb cheating, which many feared would not hold up, appears to largely have functioned well.

There have been some violent incidents and the situation could still take a more dangerous turn. Raila Odinga, the opposition leader, claims the vote-counting system was hacked and manipulated; the opposition released its own vote tallies claiming Odinga had won by a wide margin. The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) has denied these charges. On 11 August, the commission released final tallies according to which incumbent Uhuru Kenyatta secured a second term with 8.4 million votes (54.27 percent) against Odinga’s 6.7 million (44.7 percent).

Following Odinga’s statements claiming vote rigging, protests erupted in parts of Nairobi and the western town of Kisumu, resulting in five deaths. There are fears tensions could rise now that authorities have announced the final official results.

Political leaders from both sides need to demonstrate restraint and responsibility.

Political leaders from both sides need to demonstrate restraint and responsibility. In particular, Odinga should take any challenge of the outcome to the courts –not the streets. He should urge his supporters to remain calm and firmly denounce any violence against security forces. For his part, Uhuru Kenyatta should be magnanimous in victory, reach out to opposition supporters and fulfill his pledge to run an inclusive government in his second term. Security forces should avoid escalating the situation and display conflict-sensitive policing aimed at defusing tensions.

The people of Kenya displayed remarkable patience and enthusiasm on voting day. This was a welcome endorsement of democracy at a time of discernible regression in other parts of the continent. 

Yet this election is but one step on Kenya’s path to greater stability and democracy. Odinga’s rejection of the results, and the backing he received from his supporters, illustrates how deeply sceptical many Kenyans remain toward their public institutions. The electoral commission will need to build confidence in its systems, while ensuring that logistical and technical preparations as well as proper civic education take place well ahead of the next polls.

[T]he next government must address key drivers of electoral violence, especially the ethnic divisions that continue to bedevil Kenya and its politics.

More broadly, the next government must address key drivers of electoral violence, especially the ethnic divisions that continue to bedevil Kenya and its politics. As the EU observer mission noted, too many politicians relied on identity politics to rally support. Fearing ethnic clashes, many Kenyans fled from urban areas before the election. Former U.S. President Barack Obama, in a statement issued on the eve of the vote, called on Kenyans to “reject a politics of tribe and ethnicity, and embrace the extraordinary potential of an inclusive democracy”. That is wise counsel. The country’s civil society, its vibrant independent media in particular, should seek ways to promote political activism without resorting to ethnic solidarity. 

More should be done to promote gender equality as well.  For the first time in Kenya’s history, three women were elected to lead governorates created under the 2010 constitution. Several women also were elected to parliament. That is a noteworthy advance. But the Kenyan constitution requires that at least a third of parliament members be women; the results fall far short of that. The previous parliament failed to pass laws to implement this rule. The new one should make it a priority.

Threats remain and the road ahead is certain to be bumpy. It remains unclear how Odinga’s supporters will react to his rejection of the results; sustained protests are possible if he refuses to concede. Still, this was an important election that could have gone very wrong. That it did not, at least for now, is cause for satisfaction. Now, the task before the Kenyan people is to work together, try to forge greater national unity and heal the divisions that the electoral process has once more laid bare.