© 2011. Synovate Ltd. All rights reserved.

The concepts and ideas submitted to you herein are the intellectual property of Synovate Ltd. They are strictly of confidential nature and are submitted to you under the understanding that they are to be considered by you in the strictest of confidence and that no use shall be made of the said concepts and ideas, including communication to any third party without Synovate’s express prior consent and/or payment of related professional services fees in full.

SPEC BarometerKenyans Perception towards ICC Process

Date: April 5, 2011

Methodology

3© Synovate 2011

Objectives of the Survey

-To establish Kenyans’ level of awareness of the 6 post-election violence suspects summoned to The Hague

- To determine Kenyans’ preferred justice options for them as well as for other possible post-election violence suspects

- To ascertain Kenyans’ views towards the recent ‘shuttle diplomacy’ efforts

- To compare the positions of the followers of the main political ‘groupings’ currently in the country with regard to several of the above findings

4© Synovate 2011

Poll MethodologyPoll Methodology

Dates of pollingDates of polling March 27th – April 1March 27th – April 1stst, 2011, 2011

Sample SizeSample Size 2000 respondents2000 respondents

Sampling methodologySampling methodology Random, Multi-stage stratified using PPSRandom, Multi-stage stratified using PPS

UniverseUniverse Kenyan adults, aged 18+ living in Urban Kenyan adults, aged 18+ living in Urban and Rural areasand Rural areas

Data collection Data collection methodologymethodology

Sampling errorSampling error +/-2.2 with a 95% confidence level+/-2.2 with a 95% confidence level

Structured Face-to-Face interviews at the household level

5© Synovate 2011

Awareness of all of the Ocampo 6

“How many Kenyans have been named for possible trial by the ICC at The Hague?”: by Total

Base: n=2000 (All respondents)

6© Synovate 2011

Awareness of all of the Ocampo 6

“How many Kenyans have been named for possible trial by the ICC at The Hague?”: by Province

Base: n=2000 (All respondents)

7© Synovate 2011

Awareness of all of the Ocampo 6

Proportion who could name each of the 6 on the Ocampo list : by Total (and in comparison with Synovate December poll results 2010)

*86% *81% *51% *53% *56% *53%

Base: n=2000 (All respondents)* % in Dec 2010

8© Synovate 2011

Base: n=2000 (All respondents)

9© Synovate 2011

Proportion who could name all of the Ocampo-6: by Political Party Alignment

86% 81% 51% 53% 56% 53%

Base: n=2000 (All respondents)

10© Synovate 2011

“Regarding the investigation and possible prosecution of those responsible for the post-election violence, which of the following do you support?” by Total

Base: n=2000 (All respondents)

11© Synovate 2011

Support for The Hague option: by Province

Base: n=2000 (All respondents)

12© Synovate 2011

Support for The Hague vs support for all other options: by Political Party Alignment

Base: n=2000 (All respondents)

13© Synovate 2011

“Should the following three of the Ocampo-6….?”

Base: n=2000 (All respondents)

14© Synovate 2011

Base: n=1222 (Only those who support Hague option)

Support for Resignation of 3 of the Ocampo-6: by Those Who Support the Hague Option

15© Synovate 2011

“Aside from the Ocampo 6, what should be done to other suspected perpetrators of post-election violence?”

Base :n=2000(All respondents)* % in Dec 2010

16© Synovate 2011

“Do you approve or disapprove of the ‘shuttle diplomacy’ ?” by Total

Base: n=1144 (Only those who are aware of “shuttle diplomacy”)

17© Synovate 2011

“Do you approve or disapprove of the ‘shuttle diplomacy’ ?” by Province

Base: n=1144 (Only those who are aware of “shuttle diplomacy”)

18© Synovate 2011

“Do you approve or disapprove of the ‘shuttle diplomacy’? by Political Party Alignment

Base: n=1144 (Only those who are aware of “shuttle diplomacy”)

19© Synovate 2011

The target population for this survey was all Kenyan adults aged 18 and above (voting age). A

sample size of 2,000 respondents was drawn, using a 32:68 urban to rural ratio. The margin of error

attributed to sampling and other random effects of this poll’s sample size is +/- 2.2 % margin at 95%

confidence level. This sample size is large enough to make reliable estimates on the target

population opinion. The fieldwork for this survey was conducted between 27 th march-1st April, 2011.

To achieve this sample a randomized multi-stage stratified design using probability proportional to size (PPS) was used. This ensures that districts with a higher population size had a proportionately higher sample size allocation. This survey was conducted in 56 administrative and geographical districts in Kenya

The interviews were done 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.

POLL METHODOLOGY

20© Synovate 2011

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 as compared to street interviews.

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. In cases where the eligible respondent was not available for interviewing, the field interviewers made at least 3 callbacks. If after the third callback the required respondent was still not available for the interview, the field interviewer substituted that household for another.

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

Poll Methodology (Cont..)