Speaking during an interview with a local station on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, Boss said lawmakers had followed a court judgment when handling provisions relating to Section 39 of the Elections Act.
“The National Assembly deleted Clause 22 which retained Section 39 as per the judgement of the court,” Boss said.
Her remarks come amid questions about the constitutionality of retaining Section 39 following a Court of Appeal decision reportedly declaring a related provision unconstitutional in 2023.
The debate has intensified following Parliament’s consideration of the Elections (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2024, with differing interpretations emerging over the proposed changes and their implications for the public viewing of election results.
Boss Suggests Legislative Process to Remove Livestreaming Requirement
During the interview, Boss argued that if lawmakers believe the livestreaming requirement presents a problem, they can address it through the legislative process.
“What we should be asking ourselves is if there is a problem we could go back to the process and remove the livestreaming,” she said.
Her comments have added to the debate over whether the proposed amendments would change the legal obligations of the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) regarding the livestreaming of election results.
The discussion has also highlighted the need to distinguish between the removal or amendment of a particular legal provision and the wider question of how election results are announced, transmitted and made accessible to the public.
Parliament Says Livestreaming Requirement Was Retained
In an explainer issued after the National Assembly passed the Bill with amendments on October 22, 2026, Parliament stated that the requirement for the IEBC to establish a mechanism for livestreaming election results had been retained.
“The National Assembly retained the requirement for the IEBC to establish a mechanism for the livestreaming of election results,” Parliament stated.
The Bill has since been referred back to the Senate for further consideration in accordance with Article 110(4) of the Constitution.
The Senate’s consideration is an important stage in the legislative process, as the two Houses must address the Bill in accordance with the constitutional procedures governing legislation that concerns county governments.
The final wording of the proposed amendments will help clarify how the livestreaming requirement is treated under the revised electoral framework.
Court Ruling Raises Questions Over Section 39
The debate has also focused on the legal implications of Parliament retaining or amending provisions connected to Section 39 of the Elections Act.
During the television discussion, questions were raised about whether Parliament could retain a provision affected by a Court of Appeal judgment reportedly delivered in 2023.
The precise scope of the court’s ruling and its application to the proposed amendments remain central to the legal debate. The distinction between the provision addressed by the court and the specific wording adopted in the Bill is important in determining the implications of the judgment.
The controversy has also brought renewed attention to the difference between livestreaming election results and electronically transmitting results to election officials.
Livestreaming enables members of the public to watch results being announced in real time. Electronic transmission, by contrast, involves the digital communication of election results to designated officials or systems. Although the two processes may form part of the wider election results management system, they serve different functions.
As the amended Bill returns to the Senate, lawmakers will have another opportunity to consider its provisions before the legislative process is completed.
The outcome will be significant in clarifying the rules governing election results transparency and the IEBC’s obligations ahead of the 2027 General Election.
