Why the Change?
At the heart of the proposal lies a persistent challenge in Kenya’s electoral landscape: claims of irregularities in voter registration, ghost voters, impersonation and identity theft. Despite earlier reforms including biometric registration systems that capture facial images and fingerprints, critics argue that existing methods are not enough to prevent fraud or guarantee that every vote is valid.
IEBC and proponents of the proposal argue that adding an iris scanning component would raise the barrier against misused identities. Iris recognition is considered among the most accurate biometric markers because the pattern in the eye is highly unique and difficult to replicate or manipulate. Fingerprint scans have long been part of the biometric toolkit. Combining them with iris recognition could in theory, give a much more secure and reliable registration system.
Supporters also point to Kenya’s ambitions: to be more transparent, to gain public trust and to ensure election outcomes are accepted by most stakeholders. With the 2027 General Election looming, IEBC is under pressure to demonstrate that each voter registered is properly identified and that the registration roll is clean and credible.
How It Would Work
While full technical details are still being debated, Nyakundi’s report suggests some of the following implementation features:
- Continuous Registration with Biometric Upgrades: IEBC would continue voter registration across the country but new registration centers and machines would include iris scan devices alongside fingerprint scanners and cameras.
- Data Capture and Storage: Along with traditional personal information (name, address, national ID number, etc.), iris images would be stored securely in a centralized database. Fingerprint data would serve as a backup or dual verification layer.
- Validation and Verification: When registering, a person’s facial image, iris scan and fingerprints would all be compared against existing records to detect duplicates or fraudulent attempts (e.g. someone trying to register more than once).
- Accessibility Safeguards: Because not everyone may be able to provide iris data (due to eye conditions, disability or refusal), provisions might be required to accommodate special cases like alternate identification, medical exemptions or manual verification.
Potential Benefits
1. Improved Integrity & Reduced Fraud: Adding iris scans could make it much harder to register with a false identity or impersonate another voter. This helps strengthen public trust. A vital ingredient for any election.
2. Modernization of Electoral Processes: The inclusion of newer biometric technologies signals Kenya’s commitment to using advanced tools. It aligns with trends elsewhere where iris recognition is used for high‑security ID systems.
3. Efficient Dispute Resolution: When there are disputes about whether a person is registered or who owns what registration, having richer biometric data offers additional proof points. Challenges surrounding contested voter rolls might be handled more cleanly.
4. Potential for More Secure Voting: Although this proposal is about registration, stronger registration mechanisms can feed into voting processes like verifying identity at the polling station more reliably, reducing instances of voter impersonation.
The Risks, Costs and Concerns
As promising as the change may sound, several concerns are being raised by civil society, privacy advocates and voter rights groups:
- Cost & Logistics: Iris scanning devices are more expensive, need power, maintenance, training and secure storage. Rolling this out countrywide including rural areas would be a major logistical challenge for IEBC.
- Access & Equity: Some citizens have eye conditions, disabilities or cultural/religious concerns that may make iris scanning difficult. If the system doesn’t have inclusive alternatives, some people could be disenfranchised.
- Privacy and Data Security: Storing biometric data especially something as sensitive as iris scans carries heightened risk. There are questions about who has access, how data is protected, what happens in case of breaches and how consent is managed.
- Implementation Timeframes: Implementing this kind of system takes time due to procurement of devices, training of staff, pilot testing, public education and legal frameworks. If rushed, mistakes could undermine trust rather than build it.
- Public Resistance & Trust: Some Kenyans may distrust the move, posing fears of surveillance or misuse. Without strong communication, transparency and oversight, proposals might be met with skepticism and resistance.
What Stakeholders Are Saying
Reactions from various quarters are mixed but generally respectful of the goals.
- IEBC Officials (from reports like in The Kenya Times) have reiterated that biometric voter validation remains core to registration and that changes can improve confidence in electoral outcomes.
- Civil Society / Observers are calling for care: ensuring legal backing, ensuring safeguards, being inclusive and being transparent about costs and privacy.
- Legal Experts may need clarity: How will existing laws around identification, data protection and election law accommodate the use of iris scans? What legal avenues will there be for someone wrongly excluded or whose biometry is mismatched?
- Ordinary Citizens are curious and cautious. Some see it as progress, others fear long queues, disqualifications or errors. Those in remote or underserved areas worry about access and costs of traveling to registration centers.
What Needs to Be Done Before Full Roll‑Out
For the proposal to succeed and avoid becoming a source of controversy, several steps seem essential:
1. Pilot Programs: IEBC might roll out iris + fingerprint registration in selected areas first urban and second rural so to test the technology, train staff, see where problems arise.
2. Legal Frameworks & Data Protection Laws: Kenya will need to ensure that its data protection laws cover biometric data sufficiently. Proper oversight, clear data usage, storage and deletion policies must be in place.
3. Public Education: Clear communication campaigns to help people understand what is changing, their rights and what to do if they have difficulty with iris scans or fingerprints.
4. Safeguards for Vulnerable Populations: The system must accommodate people with disabilities, medical conditions or those who cannot produce clear fingerprints or irises.
5. Transparent Procurement: Ensuring devices are properly sourced, verified and not over‑priced; avoiding corruption; ensuring maintenance and support.
6. Infrastructure & Capacity Building: IEBC will need to build capacity. Staff trained, sufficient devices, power sources, internet connectivity, secure storage, backup systems.
The Bigger Picture: Kenya’s Democracy & Trust
The proposal to introduce iris scanning and enhanced biometric verification is more than a technical update. It intersects with Kenya’s democratic health, voter trust and electoral legitimacy.
Kenya’s history has had moments where elections were disputed, voter rolls challenged and trust eroded. Each new election raises questions of whether every vote counted, whether roll‑outs are fair, whether registration is inclusive. Technology can help build confidence or if poorly implemented, deepen distrust.
As Kenya heads toward the 2027 General Election, this proposal could set a precedent: whether elections are seen as more credible, whether disenfranchisement is minimized or whether every citizen’s voice is heard.
Conclusion: Progress on a Thin Line
Introducing iris scans and fingerprint verification in voter registration could mark a major stride in Kenya’s electoral reforms. Offering promises of higher integrity, reduced fraud and greater public faith. But progress on this line is fragile. Without careful planning, inclusive design, transparency and robust legal protections, the proposal could produce problems instead of solutions.
For Kenyans, the key question is: Do we adopt change to strengthen our democracy or do we allow change to exclude, intimidate or mistrust?
The future of IEBC’s proposal will depend not just on what technology is used, but how it’s used and whether it truly serves all Kenyans.