Lawyers who represented the IEBC during and after the 2013 General Election were paid Sh2 billion, which was double the cost of legal services offered.
The commission had outstanding bills for legal services totalling to Sh1 billion, as at June 2013, 2016.
However, some 68 advocates were paid the inflated amount, as part of the pending bills.
“The commission has not provided documentary evidence of cases represented and payments thereof to justify and support payments in excess of the recorded pending bills,” the auditor-general report says.
The legal fees that could be accounted for were for the presidential petition that cost Sh568 million.
IEBC also spent Sh486 million on other election related petitions.
The procurement and payments of these private legal services were without the prior approval or concurrence of the Attorney-General contrary to the Constitution.
The audit report was tabled in the National Assembly on Tuesday.
IEBC further paid Sh17 million to five law firms that were not pre-qualified and were single sourced contrary to the law.
Although the agency explained that there were cases of misfiling of documents, documentary evidence indicated that 30 law firms were paid Sh328 million during the 2015/16 financial year without lawful contracts.
In this regard therefore, the auditor-general said, it is not possible to confirm validity of the payment to these law firms.
The commission is also on the spot over irregular payment and transportation of election materials, where a company was irregularly paid Sh 50 million for transportation of the election materials.
“In addition, the procurement of these services was not fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost effective as required under Article 227 (1) of the Constitution,” the Auditor General said.
The IEBC flouted procurement guidelines in the award of the Biometric Voter Registration (BVR) system vendor support and maintenance services.
A tender that had been cancelled due to lack of funds and because the commission wanted to revise the scope of service was re-introduced under a separate tender number.
“The tender committee approved direct procurement for BVR vendor support and maintenance services,” the report said.
The auditor indicated that although the commission explained that vendor support is important in realising the benefits of the huge investment in the BVR system, the basis upon which these rates were determined has not been justified.