Yesterday, we exposed the leadership vacuum, staff upheavals and internal power struggles threatening IEBC's readiness for the 2027 General Election. Today, we turn to another front in the unfolding crisis: bitter battles over multi-billion-shilling procurement contracts, with competing bidders dragging the commission to court over election technology and ballot papers. With barely ten months to the polls, the growing disputes raise troubling questions about transparency, institutional accountability and whether IEBC is losing precious time it should be spending preparing for the election.
The Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) is increasingly being drawn into costly and protracted battles over multi-million and billion-shilling procurement contracts, raising fresh concerns about its preparedness for the August 10, 2027 General Election.
Barely ten months to the polls, the commission appears to be spending an inordinate amount of time defending its procurement decisions in court rather than concentrating on the complex preparations required to deliver a credible election.
The disputes, some of which are linked to internal disagreements and competing interests over lucrative contracts, have resulted in a series of legal challenges, with some procurement processes suspended or delayed.
More than six cases have been filed before the Public Procurement Administrative Review Board (PPARB) and the High Court, seeking to stop or overturn various procurement decisions.
At the centre of the disputes are two critical areas of election preparation: The technology that will be used to manage the polls and the printing of ballot papers and statutory election declaration forms.
The recurring complaints point to a troubling pattern. Bidders have repeatedly questioned whether IEBC's tender specifications are genuinely open to competition or designed in ways that favour particular suppliers, especially foreign firms, at the expense of qualified Kenyan companies.
The commission has also come under scrutiny over its interpretation and application of public procurement guidelines on local content, with local firms accusing it of creating conditions that effectively shut them out of major contracts.
The controversy is particularly significant because public procurement is not simply an administrative exercise. It is a constitutional responsibility that must be conducted openly, fairly and competitively. Where tender requirements are transparent and applied consistently, there should be little room for legitimate complaints. Where they are not, court battles become almost inevitable.
One of the most contentious issues concerns the requirement that 40 per cent of the value of the ballot paper contract should constitute local content.
Under the current tender conditions, the qualifying local contribution includes taxes, clearing and forwarding, transportation and shipping through a locally registered carrier.
However, prospective bidders argue that this interpretation does not go far enough. They want the 40 per cent requirement to include actual printing of ballot papers in Kenya, rather than being satisfied largely through supporting services.
They maintain that at least 40 per cent of the printing work should be undertaken locally by eligible Kenyan security printers or their partners, in line with Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) guidelines and the government's Buy Kenya, Build Kenya policy.
In court papers, some bidders argued that local content must involve the actual printing of ballot papers in Kenya, not merely taxes, transport and other ancillary services.
Kenyan firms say the current conditions risk locking them out of one of the country's most significant public procurement opportunities. They argue that excluding local printers denies them the experience and capacity needed to compete for similar contracts in the wider East African market.
They also point to neighbouring Uganda and Tanzania, where local printing is reportedly permitted for some important election documents.
The dispute has also exposed questions about whether the tender requirements are internally consistent.
Oilmax Ventures Ltd, one of the firms that challenged the procurement, argued that IEBC had imposed qualification conditions that could effectively restrict participation to a handful of international suppliers.
According to the company, the tender requires bidders to demonstrate that they have previously supplied at least 150 million security ballot papers under a single contract within the preceding five years.
The company argued that this condition creates an extremely narrow pool of eligible suppliers, while the same tender requires the successful bidder to meet a 40 per cent local-content threshold.
In a decision dated September 3, 2026, the PPARB observed that the tender, as structured, could only be satisfied by a very limited number of international suppliers.
The board consequently required IEBC to explain how the mandatory 40 per cent local-content requirement would be achieved, given the restrictive experience requirement imposed on bidders.
Oilmax maintained that the two conditions were contradictory and made it difficult for bidders to comply with the law while participating in the tender.
The controversy is not limited to ballot papers.
In September, IEBC suspended the Ksh9 billion procurement of hardware and equipment for the Kenya Integrated Elections Management System (KIEMS) following a fresh review order.
The suspension followed a successful challenge, in part, by Galadirel Investments Limited against IEBC Tender No. IEBC/OIT/01/2026-2027, covering the supply, delivery, installation, testing, commissioning, support and maintenance of the Integrated Elections Management System (IEMS) hardware and accessories.
The PPARB allowed part of the company's application for review but dismissed its complaints relating to the Ksh30 million tender security, the exclusion of a margin of preference, the quantities and scope of the tender, compatibility and interoperability requirements, and allegations that the specifications favoured Miru Systems Limited.
On October 14, 2026, the board cleared IEBC to proceed with the KIEMS procurement. It also ordered Leading Edge Limited, which had challenged the tender, to pay Ksh2 billion in legal costs.
However, the company has since appealed the decision at the High Court, meaning the dispute remains unresolved.
Another challenge involving the ballot paper tender was dismissed by the PPARB after Westend Limited sought to stop the procurement.
The board ruled that the procurement was of significant public importance and should proceed without avoidable delays. It also ordered the applicant to pay Ksh2 million in costs.
But even as the commission attempts to move forward with the procurement, another legal challenge has emerged over the security features to be included in the ballot papers for the 2027 election.
The National Reconstruction Alliance (NRA), a political party led by Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah, has sued IEBC over changes to the mandatory security specifications for ballot papers.
In a petition filed at the High Court on October 9, 2026, the party is challenging Addendum No. 3/Clarifications dated September 17, 2026, which it claims relaxed important security requirements originally contained in the tender.
The party wants the court to declare the changes unconstitutional, arguing that the revised specifications have not been demonstrated to meet the constitutional requirements for free, fair and credible elections under Articles 81 and 86 of the Constitution.
It is also seeking orders permanently restraining IEBC from implementing the changes or procuring, approving, printing, accepting, distributing or deploying ballot papers that do not meet the original security specifications.
Among the features at the centre of the dispute are variable guilloche patterns, variable micro-text, multi-coloured tapered serialisation and other security features designed to prevent ballot papers from being manipulated or counterfeited.
These are not minor technical disagreements. The security, integrity and credibility of ballot papers are central to public confidence in an election. Equally, the commission must be able to demonstrate that its procurement decisions are lawful, defensible and based on clear, consistent and transparent requirements.
Editor’s note:
The bigger concern, however, is the cumulative effect of these disputes on the commission's election preparations.
IEBC cannot afford to have critical procurement exercises repeatedly interrupted by litigation when the election clock is already ticking. The procurement of election technology, ballot papers and statutory forms is not work that can safely be left to the last minute. Each process requires adequate time for production, delivery, testing, verification and contingency planning.
The commission must therefore urgently address the questions being raised by bidders and other stakeholders. It must demonstrate that tender specifications are fair, that local-content requirements are properly applied, that security standards are maintained and that all qualified suppliers have a genuine opportunity to compete.
Where its decisions are challenged on legitimate grounds, IEBC must be prepared to correct mistakes rather than allow avoidable disputes to drag on. Where challenges are unfounded, it must defend its decisions firmly and ensure that procurement proceeds without unnecessary interruption.
Transparency is the best protection against procurement disputes. Clear specifications, open competition, consistent evaluation criteria and properly explained decisions would go a long way towards preventing the suspicion and litigation that now threaten to consume valuable preparation time.
This is particularly important in an election where public confidence will be as critical as the technical capacity to conduct the polls.
The commission is already facing questions about internal management, leadership vacancies and staff instability. As our previous investigation established, these organisational challenges are testing its ability to coordinate the many activities required to deliver the 2027 election.
The procurement disputes now add another layer of uncertainty to an institution that should, by this stage, be firmly focused on operational readiness.
IEBC must not allow tender wars to become a permanent distraction. It has a constitutional duty to organise and deliver an election that is free, fair, transparent and credible. That responsibility is far too important to be overshadowed by recurring disputes over contracts.
With barely ten months remaining, the commission must bring order to its procurement processes, resolve outstanding disputes as quickly as the law permits and get down to the business of preparing for the election.
The ultimate test will not be how many court battles IEBC wins, but whether it delivers an election whose credibility Kenyans can trust.
TOMORROW: With the leadership, management and procurement challenges mounting, how prepared is IEBC to meet the constitutional test of delivering a free, fair and credible election in 2027?