Disturbing media reports circulated early this week concerning the state’s plans to forestall pre- and post-electoral violence.

The reports were apparently based on a Ministry of Interior document, first shared with County Commanders in December and apparently regularly updated since.
Let’s note with approval the good. First, that a state plan — involving all security services — exists at all, in an apparently co-ordinated way through the Integrated Command and Control Centre.

Second, that the plan seems to rely on an assessment of where existing tensions may be exacerbated in the electoral period.
Third, that the plan seems to have analysed these tensions in a disaggregated way — noting concerns that are either county-specific or relevant to groupings of neighbouring counties — that are apparently being regularly updated by the County Commanders.

Finally, that the state plan seems to have prepared a response to these tensions.

All reassuring. But then there’s the flip side. Some of the “offences” listed as being of concern are already criminal offences — that is, they feature in (or could be read into) no small number of elections-relevant laws, beyond our original Penal Code. Things like arson, vandalism and bribery — moving on to incitement, “zoning” (impeding freedom of movement), the engagement of criminal organisations for political ends and so on.

But other listed “offences” are not only not criminalised — they have to do with constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and rights.

These “offences” include announcing incorrect results. Obviously, it would be a breach of the IEBC’s constitutional and legal mandate for any IEBC official to announce incorrect results.

But what if the host of electoral observers and media at each polling station or constituency tallying centre broadcasts the results from site? What if what they broadcast was later contradicted by results from the national tallying centre? As has — it must be pointed out — happened before. Is that what the Ministry is seeking to prevent? Parallel vote tallies from the ground? Which would be an important (and, unfortunately, still necessary) check on the IEBC?

The “offences” — even more alarmingly — include refusing to accept results.

People refuse to accept results because they doubt the credibility of the electoral process. People call to public protest to express that doubt.

In that sense, the best risk-mitigation measures are not to call for increases in the numbers and capabilities of our security services. Nor a focus on supposed opposition strongholds by the same (think about the identified hot spots critically). But instead to call for complete integrity of the electoral process — including from counting through to tallying. And to call for whatever it would take to ensure the independence of electoral-dispute resolution mechanisms — including the Supreme Court, whose decision on the last presidential petitions was out of touch with what was presented to it.

Ethnic grievance isn’t our problem. Economic and political grievance is —unfortunately understood and spoken about in almost exclusively ethnic terms.

L. Muthoni Wanyeki is Amnesty International’s regional director for East Africa, the Horn and the Great Lakes