Manufactured Chaos or Selective Policing? Why the IEBC Must Be Careful Not to Tilt the Field

By Dr. Luchetu Likaka

The recent remarks by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) chair, echoed by findings from the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI), present a troubling narrative. Politicians, it is suggested, are increasingly engineering violence at their own events for sympathy, visibility or strategic advantage.

On the surface, this appears to be a sober warning ahead of 2027. However, when examined more closely, it raises a more uncomfortable question: who benefits from this framing?

There is no doubt that political actors across the divide, both those aligned to government and those in opposition, have, at times, flirted with the dangerous game of mobilizing “goons” to disrupt rivals or dramatize their own victimhood.

This is not new in Kenya’s electoral history. However, the IEBC chair’s sweeping posture risks flattening a complex problem into a convenient narrative that can be selectively applied. That is where the danger lies.

By emphasizing that politicians may be sponsoring their own disruptions, the Commission introduces a subtle but powerful justification for disqualifying or restricting candidates under the guise of maintaining order.

In a politically charged environment, such discretion can easily shift into a tool of exclusion. It does not take much imagination to see how certain aspirants, particularly those perceived as disruptive to the status quo, could be locked out based on allegations that are difficult to independently verify.

Also Read: OPINION: The Perils of a One-Man State: Why Ruto’s Solo Politics May Backfire

Ambiguity in Political Incidents

The incident involving Rigathi Gachagua’s convoy being blocked by goons illustrates this ambiguity clearly. Was it an externally orchestrated disruption? An internally engineered spectacle? Or a mix of both?

In many cases, the truth sits in a grey zone. Yet policy responses often remain rigid and binary—punish, bar, or restrict. This creates a tension between perception and evidence.

Equally important is the uncomfortable truth that the use of hired disruptors is not the preserve of any one political camp. Both government-aligned figures and opposition politicians have, at different times, been linked directly or indirectly to such tactics.

However, singling out “politicians” in general without naming systemic enablers such as weak enforcement, politicized policing and local patronage networks risks obscuring accountability rather than strengthening it.

Also Read: OPINION: 2027 Power and Pressure-Why William Ruto Leads, but the Race Is Far from Safe

IEBC’s Balancing Act Ahead of Elections

The IEBC must resist the temptation to appear decisive at the expense of fairness. Electoral integrity is not only about preventing violence. It is also about ensuring a level playing field where rules are applied transparently and consistently.

If the Commission’s warnings evolve into discretionary crackdowns, they could unintentionally or otherwise shape the electoral field long before voters make their decisions.

The Real Enforcement Gap

Kenya does not lack laws to deal with political violence. What it has consistently struggled with is impartial and consistent enforcement.

The solution, therefore, is not rhetorical escalation. It is institutional discipline. Investigations must remain evidence-based, prosecutions must be even-handed and sanctions must be insulated from political pressure.

Otherwise, what is framed as a crackdown on chaos may quietly become a strategy of control. In such a scenario, the loudest casualties would not be goons, but democracy itself.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for instant news updates