As Kenya heads into the critical 2027 general elections, the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) is proposing a controversial shift in how election results are broadcast to the public. CEO Hussein Marjan has publicly floated the idea of a shared broadcast signal proposal for 2027 general elections, arguing that conflicting figures from various media houses during vote tallying could generate confusion and public anxiety. But this proposal has stirred concerns, with many questioning whether it marks the beginning of a coordinated attempt to control the election narrative, restrict media freedom, and obscure public scrutiny.
In his remarks, Marjan cited the potential confusion caused by different media houses tallying and broadcasting election results independently. “When you have different results being aired by various stations, even if they are unofficial, the public might not understand that these are just projections. They may take them as final,” he said, suggesting that a centralized signal would ensure uniformity and reduce misinformation.
On the surface, this appears to be a logical intervention to address the fragmented and often contradictory results aired during election night. But beneath this explanation lies a more troubling possibility – a move that could reduce transparency, compromise media freedom, and erode public trust in the electoral process.
What Is The Background For IEBC’s Shared Broadcast Signal Proposal for 2027?
Historically, Kenyan media houses have played a critical role in tallying and reporting results from polling stations across the country. This decentralised coverage allows the public to follow the electoral process in near-real time, ensuring that no single narrative dominates.
In the 2022 elections, media stations like Citizen TV, NTV, KTN News, and K24 deployed hundreds of journalists to constituencies and tallying centres. Each media house collected Form 34A data, the official tally from polling stations, independently from the IEBC portal and compiled projections based on their methodology.
However, because media houses often focused on different regions at different times, they published varying provisional totals that did not always match, especially during the first 24–48 hours of counting. While these discrepancies were understandable, given logistical and editorial differences, they sparked public anxiety and political tension, especially on social media.
But that, critics argue, is not a reason to silence them. “A free media doesn’t mean a perfect media, it means that no single voice has the monopoly on truth,” one veteran journalist told this writer. “What Marjan is proposing is dangerously close to manufacturing consent.”
IEBC’s argument also overlooks a fundamental challenge – media houses cannot be at the same polling stations at the same time. The nature of media coverage requires that journalists spread out across the country to gather data independently.
No media house has the capacity, or the constitutional mandate, to replicate the IEBC’s nationwide tallying infrastructure. Their job is to complement, not replace or replicate the IEBC. What the shared broadcast signal proposal for 2027 effectively does is disqualify independent verification, which is often the backbone of electoral integrity in democracies.
The problem, then, is not that media houses produce different tallies. The problem is that IEBC has historically delayed or failed to provide timely and trustworthy updates, allowing a vacuum that is quickly filled by speculation.
Media’s Double-Edged Role in Elections
Kenya’s relationship with media during elections is deeply complex. On one hand, the media has been praised for exposing electoral irregularities and giving citizens real-time information. On the other hand, its role in the 2007 post-election violence remains a painful reminder of its power to either stabilize or inflame tensions.
In 2007, the media projected Mwai Kibaki’s win at a time when Raila Odinga’s ODM claimed they had won, based on parallel tallies. The contradiction in reported results, coupled with a lack of transparency from the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK), plunged the country into one of its worst political crises. More than 1,100 people died, and 600,000 were displaced.
Some critics argue that unverified and sensationalist reporting added fuel to the fire. Others defend the media, saying they were caught between reporting live events and avoiding state censorship. The truth is more nuanced: media freedom must be matched with responsibility, but it cannot be replaced with state control.
What the Constitution Says About Free Media
Kenya’s 2010 Constitution is clear: the media must remain independent. Article 34 states:
“The State shall not, (a) exercise control over or interfere with any person engaged in broadcasting, the production or circulation of any publication or the dissemination of information by any medium.”
A shared broadcast signal proposal for 2027 could easily breach this constitutional protection, depending on how it is implemented. Will the IEBC or government institutions control the signal? Who will produce the content? Who selects what is aired? These are questions that remain unanswered, raising fears of institutional overreach.
How Have Political Leaders and Civil Society Reacted?
The backlash to the proposal has been swift. Several politicians have warned that the shared broadcast signal proposal for 2027 is a thinly veiled attempt to curb media freedom ahead of a highly consequential election.
Opposition leader Raila Odinga was quick to respond: “Kenyans fought hard for democracy. What Marjan is proposing is a return to the dark days of state-controlled information. We will not allow it.”
Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna also weighed in, saying, “The IEBC must remember that its job is to count votes, not to count narratives. Media freedom is not negotiable.”
Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC), have also condemned the move. In a joint statement, they said:
“The proposal to centralise election results broadcasting violates the spirit of pluralism, a cornerstone of democracy. It’s not the job of IEBC to control public perception, it’s to administer credible elections transparently.”
What Is The Role of the Electoral Commission In Kenya?
The IEBC has one core mandate: to conduct free, fair, and transparent elections. It is not, and should never become, a communications regulator or content curator.
To fulfil its constitutional mandate, the IEBC must prioritise the timely transmission of election results. Delays in releasing data create an information vacuum that fuels speculation, mistrust, and political tension.
Equally important is ensuring secure and open access to primary election documents such as Form 34As and Form 34Bs. These forms are the foundation of credible vote tallying and must be readily available to the public, media, and observers without obstruction.
The commission must also commit to providing prompt updates through its official results portal. When the IEBC fails to share information in real time, it inadvertently pushes voters to rely on potentially unreliable or partisan sources.
The IEBC must also clearly communicate whenever there are discrepancies in reported results. Explaining the source of variations, whether clerical errors, delayed submissions, or contested tallies, helps preserve public trust and avoids fueling conspiracy theories or unrest.
Rather than policing media coverage, the IEBC should ensure that its own systems are bulletproof. In the 2022 elections, one of the reasons media coverage was inconsistent was that the IEBC portal was slow and inaccessible at times, forcing journalists to rely on limited local data.
How Are Other Democracies Handling Election Coverage?
In the United States, multiple media outlets project results independently using their own data models. CNN, Fox News, and the Associated Press often show varying results in real-time. But transparency, public understanding of projections vs. official counts, and robust institutional trust sustain the system.
In Ghana and South Africa, media houses also report results based on real-time data. In each case, the electoral commission provides regular official updates, creating a trustworthy baseline. The media’s projections are seen as just that, projections.
What Would Be The Most Ideal Way Forward?
Instead of implementing a shared broadcast signal proposal for 2027, Kenya should adopt more transparent and inclusive alternatives that enhance trust in the electoral process.
First, the IEBC should improve the speed, accessibility, and credibility of its official results portal. Real-time updates that are accurate and available to all will ensure that media houses and the public receive the same information at the same time, reducing the need for speculation.
Second, the country needs robust media literacy campaigns ahead of the elections. These campaigns should educate voters on the distinction between media projections and official results to prevent panic, misinformation, and misinterpretation of early tallies.
Third, Kenya should establish a multi-stakeholder monitoring framework. Civil society groups, international observers, and independent media monitors must be given the space and tools to verify results independently and hold all electoral actors accountable.
Finally, the IEBC should adopt open data standards, including API access, to guarantee that all media houses and stakeholders have equal, real-time access to official election data. This would eliminate discrepancies and ensure fairness in election coverage.
The shared broadcast signal proposal for 2027 general elections may be framed as a logistical solution, but it risks undermining core democratic values. Kenya’s democracy thrives when multiple voices compete in the public arena, not when they are harmonised to a single, sanitised narrative.
Media freedom is not just a privilege. It is a right enshrined in law, a pillar of public accountability, and a buffer against authoritarianism. The IEBC should not drift into roles it was never designed to play.
As the 2027 elections approach, Kenya must guard against incremental authoritarianism disguised as “order.” A free, responsible, and pluralistic media is not a threat to democracy.
ALSO READ: IEBC Portal Outage Sparks Transparency Concerns Ahead of 2027 General Elections
