30-second brief
The essential point
Draft: an editor has not checked this summary yet. Every statement below still shows the official record it came from.
During the 2013 presidential election, voter-identification and results-transmission technologies failed. The Supreme Court accepted a manual fallback, raised concerns about the unbacked-up voter register, and ruled that device failures alone did not invalidate the election.
Evidence: Judgment paragraphs 234–237
Why it matters
The judgment shows how the Court treated technology failure within election-integrity law. It also identifies procurement concerns and a voter-register safeguard that it said required investigation or urgent correction.
Evidence: Judgment paragraphs 234–237
Open the key points and evidence
-
The Court recorded that EVID and RTS began in use but later stalled and crashed.
Judgment paragraphs 234–237 -
It linked the failure to procurement disputes and recommended investigation of possible impropriety or criminality.
Judgment paragraphs 234–237 -
It said IEBC had no option but to use the manual system after transmission technology failed.
Judgment paragraphs 234–237 -
It flagged that Green Book voter-registration data had no backup and called this an urgent issue.
Judgment paragraphs 234–237 -
It found that failed technological devices did not, by themselves, make the presidential election null.
Judgment paragraphs 234–237
Full recordAccount and consequence
Official-source wording
What the official record says
234 In the instant case, there is evidence that the EVID and RTS technologies were used in the electoral process at the beginning, but they later stalled and crashed. Different reasons explain this failure but, by the depositions of Dismus Ong’ondi, the failure mainly arose from the misunderstandings and squabbles among IEBC members during the procurement process – squabbles which occasioned the failure to assess the integrity of the technologies in good time. It is, indeed, likely that the acquisition process was marked by competing interests involving impropriety, or even criminality: and we recommend that this matter be entrusted to the relevant State agency, for further investigation and possible prosecution of suspects. 235 But as regards the integrity of the election itself, what lawful course could IEBC have taken after the transmission technology failed? There was no option, in our opinion, but to revert to the manual electoral system, as was done. 236 We note from the evidence that the said manual system, though it did serve as a vital fall-back position, has itself a major weakness which IEBC has a public duty to set right. The ultimate safeguard for the voter registration process, namely “the Green Book”, has data that is not backed-up, just in case of a fire, or other like calamity. We signal this as an urgent item of the agenda of the IEBC, and recommend appropriate redressive action. 237 From case law, and from Kenya’s electoral history, it is apparent that electronic technology has not provided perfect solutions. Such technology has been inherently undependable, and its adoption and application has been only incremental, over time. It is not surprising that the applicable law has entrusted a discretion to IEBC, on the application of such technology as may be found appropriate. Since such technology has not yet achieved a level of reliability, it cannot as yet be considered a permanent or irreversible foundation for the conduct of the electoral process. This negates the petitioner’s contention that, in the instant case, injustice, or illegality in the conduct of election would result, if IEBC did not consistently employ electronic technology. It follows that the petitioner’s case, insofar as it attributes nullity to the Presidential election on grounds of failed technological devices, is not sustainable.
Verbatim excerpt · Judgment paragraphs 234–237 · Kenya Law — Odinga & 5 others v IEBC & 3 others [2013] KESC 6 (KLR)
Evidence stack
Sources behind this record
- Kenya Law — Odinga & 5 others v IEBC & 3 others [2013] KESC 6 (KLR)Judgment paragraphs 234–237 · Official Kenyan public authority · admitted for public claims
- Kenya Law — official judgment dateJudgment title and decision-date line · Official Kenyan public authority · admitted for public claims