The IEBC Servers: A Pandora's Box or a Political Sideshow?

 

The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) has announced its readiness to open the servers containing the 2022 election results, including the presidential results. This announcement has sparked excitement among Azimio supporters, who see it as a long-overdue step toward transparency. However, caution is advised—there may be little cause for celebration yet.

History shows that the IEBC’s handling of servers during contested elections often leads to more questions than answers. In 2017, following a Supreme Court order, the IEBC opened just one of its servers, leaving critical details hidden. This partial compliance contributed to the nullification of President Uhuru Kenyatta’s win by Chief Justice David Maraga’s court, which emphasized that the election process, not just physical results, must meet constitutional standards.

Fast forward to 2022, the same scenario played out. Only one server was opened, despite another Supreme Court directive, raising suspicions of irregularities. The court's decision to uphold the election results despite these gaps left many Kenyans questioning the integrity of the process. Words like “hot air” and “wild goose chase” from the court’s ruling only deepened public skepticism.

Now, as IEBC promises to open the servers, doubts linger. Key concerns include whether the servers to be revealed contain the authentic, unaltered results or if the announcement is a political strategy to quell demands for accountability. Many suspect that the government and IEBC have vested interests in maintaining the status quo, fearing legal and political fallout if the true results differ from those announced last year.

From a technical standpoint, servers contain timestamps that record when data was entered or altered. While altering these timestamps is nearly impossible with existing technology, some fear advanced tools could manipulate the data before the servers are opened. This raises further concerns about the credibility of the process.

Critics argue that even if the servers were fully opened and discrepancies were found, the government would likely dismiss the findings. Conversely, if genuine results were revealed, they could implicate IEBC officials in criminal misconduct, exposing them to legal consequences.

What would happen if it were proven that the declared loser had actually won? The country would not need another election; instead, the correct winner would receive a certificate and assume office. Yet, given the political climate, such a scenario seems highly unlikely.

For many Azimio leaders and supporters, the IEBC’s announcement lacks credibility. Trust in the government and electoral institutions is at an all-time low. Without trust, the legitimacy of elections—and by extension, governance—is fundamentally undermined. This disillusionment fuels apathy, with some Kenyans believing that future election results are pre-determined.

The skepticism surrounding the server opening underscores deeper issues of transparency and accountability in Kenya’s electoral process. Whether or not the IEBC delivers on its promise, this saga highlights the urgent need for reforms to restore public trust in democratic institutions.

Until the servers are genuinely and transparently opened, the announcement will remain shrouded in doubt. In the meantime, Kenyans wait, watching closely to see how this unfolds.