The debate over whether Kenya’s next General Election should be held in August 2026 or August 2027 has taken a new turn, with economist and President William Ruto’s advisor David Ndii arguing that the dispute is fundamentally a question of mathematics rather than simply one of legal interpretation.
David Ndii says the key issue is how the Constitution defines a specific election date and the period between elections, arguing that the two should not be treated in the same way.
His position has emerged alongside arguments by lawyer Willis Evans Otieno, former Majority Leader Aden Duale and a recent ruling by the High Court on the interpretation of the constitutional election timetable.
“The cause of the confusion on election dates is failure to recognize that the subject matter is not law or language. It is mathematics, specifically set theory,” Ndii said.
The remarks came hours after the High Court ruled that the Constitution requires the presidential election to be held on the second Tuesday of August in the fifth year, effectively placing the next General Election on Tuesday, August 11, 2026, rather than in 2027.
In a judgment delivered in Malindi, Justice Mugure Thande declared that the fifth year following the August 9, 2022 election began on August 9, 2026.
The court, however, suspended the implementation of the ruling until after the 2027 General Election.
David Ndii Explains Kenya Election Date Dispute Using Mathematics
Ndii’s argument centres on the difference between a point and an interval.
According to him, the constitutional reference to the second Tuesday of August identifies a single date — what he describes mathematically as a point. The period used to determine the election year, however, is an interval.
He argues that Article 259(5)(a) provides an important rule for calculating time expressed in days: the day on which the first event occurs is excluded, while the day by which the last event may occur is included.
This, Ndii argues, means the date of the previous election should not simply be treated as the starting day of a five-year period.
Instead, the period should be constructed according to the Constitution’s rules for counting time, with the first endpoint excluded and the final endpoint included.
“1st to 5th year is an interval. Article 259(5)b prescribes a half open interval that excludes first endpoint (date of last election) and includes second as date of next election. Length of term is irrelevant,” he added.
Ndii also points to Article 259(5)(b), which provides the corresponding rule where time is expressed in months. His broader argument is that the Constitution itself provides the method that should be used when determining the intervals between constitutional events.
He has used this distinction to challenge the argument that the next election date can be determined simply by adding five years to August 9, 2022.
“The ‘2nd Tuesday of August’ is a point, a single specific value. 1st to 5th year is an interval.”
In another post, Ndii argued that treating August 9, 2022, to August 9, 2026, as the relevant period creates what he considers an impermissible closed interval:
“9th of August 2022 to 9th of August 2026 is (a) a closed interval and (b) endpoints are dates not days. It violates 259(5)b in totality.”
“The only instructions we need from the constitution to determine election calendar is end points, nature of interval and number of intervals.”
Ndii’s argument is therefore not simply that five years after the 2022 election is 2027.
His point is that the constitutional question is how the period is counted in the first place, and whether the second Tuesday of August falls within the fourth or fifth interval when those rules are applied.
He has described the dispute as a mathematical problem rather than a question of language, arguing that the Constitution provides three things needed to determine the election calendar: the endpoints, the nature of the interval and the number of intervals.
Lawyer Willis Otieno Takes a Different View
Lawyer Willis Evans Otieno has challenged this interpretation, arguing that Ndii’s calculation answers a different question from the one posed by Article 136(2)(a).
Otieno argues that calculating when five years have elapsed from the 2022 election is not the same as determining when an election is required to be held “in the fifth year.”
He breaks the period into five intervals beginning after the 2022 election:
- First year: August 9, 2022 – August 8, 2023
- Second year: August 9, 2023 – August 8, 2024
- Third year: August 9, 2024 – August 8, 2025
- Fourth year: August 9, 2025 – August 8, 2026
- Fifth year: August 9, 2026 – August 8, 2027
Under this calculation, the second Tuesday of August 2026 falls within the fifth-year interval.
The second Tuesday of August 2027, meanwhile, would fall after the end of that interval.
Otieno’s central point is that an equation showing when five years have elapsed does not necessarily answer the constitutional question of when an election must be held.
“That is the precise distinction: ‘five years’ is not the same proposition as ‘in the fifth year.’”
What the High Court Said
Lady Justice Thande’s judgment ruled that under Article 136(2)(a), the presidential election must be held on the second Tuesday of August in the fifth year following the previous General Election, and not after the fifth year.
The court specifically declared that the fifth year following the presidential election held on August 9, 2022 commenced on August 9, 2026.
This means the court’s interpretation places the second Tuesday of August 2026 — August 11, 2026 — inside the fifth year.
The court also declared that holding the presidential election on a date other than the second Tuesday of August 2026 would violate several constitutional provisions.
However, the judgment did not order the country to hold an election in August 2026 immediately.
The court noted that the petition seeking such an order had been filed in October 2025 and that preparations for the 2027 election were already at an advanced stage.
It therefore found that ordering the election to be held in August 2026 would be practically impossible to implement and could plunge the country into chaos.
The court said it was necessary to balance enforcement of the law with judicial restraint to avoid “precipitating unimaginable national instability.”
The declaration of invalidity was consequently suspended until after the next General Election, allowing the relevant authorities to correct the constitutional defect.
Also Read: High Court Rules Next Elections Should Have Been Held in 2026, Not 2027
Duale Challenges the Court’s Interpretation
The court’s interpretation has, however, attracted criticism from Health CS, Aden Duale, who argues that the judgment improperly distinguishes between the words “fifth year” and “five years.”
Duale maintains that the Constitution should be read as guaranteeing a five-year term for elected officials.
He argues that the court’s calculation effectively reduces the period between the 2022 and 2026 elections to about four years and two days.
According to Duale, this would create an absurd situation in which elected leaders would leave office before completing what has traditionally been understood as a five-year electoral term.
He also points to Article 177(4), which provides that a county assembly is elected for a term of five years, arguing that this supports the interpretation that the electoral cycle should run for a full five years.
Duale further argues that the Constitution provides the same election date for presidential, parliamentary and county elections.
His concern is that interpreting August 11, 2026 as the election date would effectively terminate the terms of elected leaders before five full years had elapsed.
The disagreement now centres on whether that interpretation properly reconciles Article 136(2)(a), Article 142, Article 177(4) and Article 259(5), and whether the Constitution’s rules for calculating time can be used to determine the election date in the manner proposed by Ndii.
Follow our WhatsApp Channel and X Account for real-time news updates.
