Statement On The KPMG Audit Of The Register Of Voters

Kura Yangu Sauti Yangu Logo Final-01-web

On 12 April 2017, after learning that KPMG had won the contract for the audit of the voters’
register, Kura Yangu Sauti Yangu (KYSY) met with representatives of the KPMG team leading the
audit. The purpose of the meeting was to gain an understanding of KPMG’s methodology and timeline.

It is to be recalled that the audit of the register of voters is one of the key decisions made by
the Joint Parliamentary Select Committee on Matters Relating to the Electoral and Boundaries
Commission, and that the purpose of the audit was to restore public confidence in the  register of

During the meeting, KPMG      its audit methodology, which consists of three primary
processes. First, the firm proposes to review the legal framework governing elections and the
process by which the IEBC conducted voter registration. Second, KPMG says it will conduct an
internal analysis of the register to identify duplicates, incomplete entries and registrants’
personal details. KPMG says that registrants’ details will be cross-checked against the national
databases of IDs, pass- ports, births and deaths. Third, KPMG says it will conduct an inclusiveness
check to assess how the register reflects the diversity of the Kenyan population. At the end of the
process, KPMG will submit a report of its findings to the IEBC. KPMG says it will take 21 days to
complete the audit, but time does not begin to run until the IEBC submits the register to the firm.
To date, KPMG has not received the register.

Based on the above methodology, KPMG’s audit hopes to inform Kenyans about the extent to which the
voters’ register includes people who are legally eligible to be on the register. It is important to
note that KPMG’s audit will be limited in its utility because it will only be able to provide
informa- tion about whether or not people in the register are theoretically eligible to be
included. As explained below, it will not be able to substantively comment on people’s lived
experiences with registration or on how voter registration problems are disenfranchising parts of
the population.

Voter registration audits are meant to inform stakeholders about a range of issues. First and
foremost, in most cases, audits of voters’ registers aim to mitigate mistrust about the
independence and/or impartiality about the authority responsible for compiling the register or to
address a lack of public confidence in the legitimacy of the register. Second, an audit provides
important information related to the accuracy of the data contained in the register. Specifically,
an audit report provides a collection of useful statistics related to how much of the register
contains inaccurate or outdated information, including, for example, registration details of those
who have passed away, multiple entries of the same registrant, underage registrants, foreign
registrants, etc. Third, and perhaps most critically, an audit reveals important information about
people’s experiences with the registration process. Typi- cally, this is done through “list to
voter”/”voter to list” methods. The former is meant to ensure that every name in the register is
that of an actual person eligible to vote and that his/her info is correct and up to date, w  ile
the latter seeks to determine what proportion of the eligible voting population
is on the register.


Our Partners