Kenya’s 2027 presidential election will retain a national aggregation and verification stage after the High Court rejected a petition challenging the constitutionality of the process.
The ruling follows a petition by Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah, who had argued that presidential results declared by constituency returning officers should be final and that the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) should not subject them to another verification or tallying process at the national level.
The court, however, upheld the provisions of the Elections Act and regulations providing for national aggregation and verification of presidential results.
The decision comes less than a year before the August 2027 General Election, placing renewed focus on how presidential results will move from polling stations to the final national declaration.
Why Kenya needs a national tally
The judges linked the national tallying process to the constitutional requirements for winning the presidency.
Under Article 138(4) of the Constitution, a presidential candidate must secure more than half of all votes cast nationally and at least 25 per cent of the votes cast in more than half of Kenya’s counties.
The court found that these requirements cannot be established from constituency or county results alone.
It therefore held that a national aggregation and confirmation exercise is necessary to determine whether a presidential candidate has met the constitutional threshold.
“A national aggregation and confirmation exercise is accordingly not an arbitrary extra burden imposed on presidential candidates or voters,” the court held, describing the process as a necessary consequence of the constitutional threshold.
What happens when results differ?
The ruling also addressed one of the most sensitive issues in Kenya’s electronic results transmission system: discrepancies between electronically transmitted figures and the physical results from polling stations.
The court held that where such a discrepancy arises, the result verified and declared at the respective polling station will prevail.
This distinction is important because Kenya’s electoral system begins with results recorded at polling stations before they are collated at constituency level and ultimately aggregated nationally. The IEBC has previously explained that Forms 34A from polling stations are collated into Form 34B at constituency level and then into Form 34C at the national tallying centre.
The established legal position has also been that constituency returning officers’ declarations cannot simply be altered by the IEBC during national tallying, except through an election court process.
Omtatah’s challenge
Omtatah had sought to stop what he considered an additional layer of verification after constituency returning officers had declared presidential results.
His argument was that the Constitution places the final responsibility for tallying and declaring presidential results at the constituency level and that the national process should amount only to adding up those results.
The petition was filed as debate over the role of the National Tallying Centre intensified ahead of the 2027 election. Opposition figures and other critics had also questioned whether the centre creates unnecessary opportunities for delays or disputes.
The High Court rejected the central constitutional challenge but did not accept every claim advanced in the petition.
It said several arguments concerning access to information, ballot reconciliation, government timelines and aspects of equal treatment had not met the required legal threshold.
Court calls for electoral law reforms
Beyond the immediate dispute, the judges urged Parliament to consider reforms to electoral laws before the 2027 election.
The court invoked philosopher John Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” concept, saying lawmakers should develop electoral rules without knowing which political actors or groups might benefit from them in future elections.
The principle, according to the court, would encourage laws designed around the broader public interest rather than short-term political considerations.
The ruling therefore leaves the national tallying framework in place while putting Parliament on notice over the need for further electoral reforms.
With the 2027 election approaching, the decision provides a legal framework for the national aggregation of presidential results while leaving the established protections around polling-station and constituency results central to the tallying process.
