163 (a) procure and put in place the technology necessary for the conduct of a general election at least eight months before such elections; and (b) test, verify and deploy such technology at least sixty days before a general election. 5.18.0.11 Following the Election Laws (Amendment) Act No. 1 of 2017, section 44(4) and (7) were amended to change the time for the procurement of the technology from 8 months to 120 days. Further section 44A of the Elections Act was introduced, which mandated the IEBC to put in place a complementary mechanism for identification of voters (and transmission of election results) that is simple, accurate, verifiable, secure, accountable and transparent. In the case of National Super Alliance (NASA) Kenya v IEBC & 2 Others, Nairobi High Court Petition No. 328 of 2017, the High Court was urged to declare that the 8 August 2017 general election would be exclusively electronic with respect to identification of voters and transmission of results. The High Court acknowledged that the current legal regime in the country requires an integrated electronic system that enables biometric voter registration, electronic voter identification, and electronic transmission of results. 5.18.0.12 The Court, however, observed that the complementary mechanism envisaged in section 44A only sets in when the integrated electronic system fails. In rejecting the prayer that identification of voters and transmission of results be exclusively electronic, the Court held: To our mind, what was required of the respondent was to put in place a mechanism that would complement the one set out in section 44 of the Act. The particulars of the mechanism, whether electronic, manual, or any other mode was not expressly provided in section 44A. If that were the intention of Parliament, nothing would have been easier than to specify so. 5.18.0.13 The High Court decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in National Super Alliance (NASA) Kenya v IEBC & 2 Others, Civil Appeal 258 of 2017. In Katiba Institute & 3 Others v Attorney General & 2 Others, Nairobi High Court Petition 548 of 2017, the High Court declined to declare the complementary mechanism under section 44A of the Elections Act unconstitutional. This was because it was complementary and was not envisaged to replace the electronic voter identification system but only used when the principal voter identification system failed due to technological failure. Editorial Note: The decision by the IEBC to do away with the manual register of voters as a complementary mechanism for voter identification in 2022 was challenged in the case of Kenya Human Rights Commission & Others v IEBC & 2 Others, HCCHR Petition E306 of 2022 (unreported). While the IEBC asserted that its decision to not use the manual register was informed by its findings in 2017 that the printed Register provided an avenue for misuse during the voting process, the High Court ruled that the decision deviated from Regulation 69(1) (e) of the Elections (General) Regulations, 2012, which provides, as part of the voting procedure, that identification of voters who could not be identified using electronic voter identification kits was to be done using the printed Register of Voters. The decision to abandon the use of the printed Register was, therefore, a violation of Articles 38, 83 and 86 of the Constitution. The Court of Appeal in United Democratic Alliance Party v Kenya Human Rights Commission & Others Civil Application No E288 of 2022, the appellate court granted a stay of the judgment of the High Court and reiterated that the BENCH BOOK ON ELECTORAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION