Referendum Baseline Public Opinion Poll June 2010

1. Referendum Baseline Public Opinion PollJune 2010 Date Published: 4th June 2010

2. Methodology

3. Objective of the Survey The objective of the survey was to assess voters views on issues around the draft constitution including voting intentions and prediction of the likely outcome of the referendum. To inform and act as a planning guide for the various stakeholders involved in the referendum process and to inform public debate

4. Poll Methodology Dates of polling May 22nd – May 28th 6017 respondents Sample Size Sampling methodology Random, Multi-stage stratified using PPS Recently registered voters by IIEC Universe Structured Face-to-Face interviews at the household level Data collection methodology Sampling error +/-1.6 with a 95% confidence level

5. Sample Distribution

6. Media coverage on draft constitutional matters

7. Constitutional issues media coverage (1st to 30th May 2010)

8. Constitutional issues coverage on TV (1st to 30th May 2010)

9. Familiarity with the proposed Draft

10. “How much do you know about the draft constitution?” Base: n=6017 (All Respondents)

11. “What are the sources of what you know about the constitution?” Base: n=6017 (All Respondents)

12. “How much would you say you know about the draft constitution?” – By Gender and Setting % indicating know a lot/something about the draft Base: n=6017 (All Respondents)

13. “How much would you say you know about the draft constitution?” – By Province Base: n=6017 (All Respondents)

14. Views on the draft

15. “How Decisive are the voters?” Base: n=6017 (All Respondents)

16. “When a referendum is held in August this year, will you vote YES to approve or NO to reject the draft constitution?” Base: n=6017 (All Respondents)

17. “When a referendum is held in August this year, will you vote YES to approve or NO to reject the draft constitution?” Base: n=4374 (those who have made up their minds)

18. Reasons why you would vote against the proposed constitution Base: n=1141 (those will vote NO)

19. Support for the draft by the level of familiarity % Indicating will vote ‘yes to approve’ Base: n=3233 (those indicated will vote Yes to approve)

20. In you view is the draft constitution a very good constitution that does not need to be amended, a good constitution that needs a few minor amendments, an acceptable constitution that needs major amendments or a bad constitution that should be rejected altogether? Base: n=6017 (All Respondents)

21. Support for the draft by support for political personalities and political parties

22. “If Presidential elections were held today, who would you vote for if that person was a presidential candidate?” Base: n=6017 (All Respondents)

23. Support for the draft by political personalities followers. Base: Supporters of each personality

24. “Which political party do you feel closest to?” Base: n=6017 (All Respondents)

25. Support for the draft by political parties followers. Base: Supporters of each Party

26. Support for the draft by Provinces. Base: n=6017 (All Respondents)

27. Religious leaders and the draft

28. “Should the religious leaders take sides, either “YES” or “No” on the constitutional referendum?” Which side should they support? Yes = 50%, No 35%, Not sure 16% Base: n=6017 (All Respondents)

29. “Which side would you like the religious leaders to support?” Base: n=6017 (All Respondents)

30. Poll Methodology The target population for this survey was all Kenyans who have recently registered with the IIEC as voters. A sample size of 6017 respondents was drawn and distributed across the country based on the voters register by regions as per the IIEC. The sample was distributed across 71 districts. The maximum margin of error attributed to sampling and other random effects of this poll’s sample size is +/- 1.6 % margin at 95% confidence level. A randomized multi-stage stratified design using probability proportional to size (PPS) was used. This ensured that districts with a higher voter population size had a proportionately higher sample size allocation. The interviews were done face to face at household level. Household interviews were preferred because they allow for pure random sampling ensuring full representation of the various demographics and also for quality control. These face-to-face in-home interviews are also preferred because they allowed for further probing as respondents have more time to respond to questions . The households were selected using the systematic random sampling procedure. In this case a random starting point was selected within a cluster of households. From that point the interviewers mainly skipped 4 households until the sample size for that cluster in the district was achieved. One eligible respondent was then selected from each qualifying household through a household member randomization technique known as the Kish Grid. This was done to ensure that there was no bias related to household member selection. The data collection involved the use of a semi-structured questionnaire having both open and closed ended questions. The poll questions were structured in a very open manner, with all possible options provided, including no opinion. This ensures that there is no bias at all with the way the questions are asked. Strict quality control measures for data collection were applied. The fieldwork Supervisors made a minimum of 15% on-site back checks and accompanied a minimum of 10% of all interviewers’ calls, while the field managers made 2% back-checks. These back-checks were made within the same day of interviewing

31. For further details Please contact: George Waititu Tel: + 254 20 4450 196 Mobile: +254 722206980 George.waititu@synovate .com