Counties should not be political fiefdoms for governors

By  Isaac Omungo

Former Chief of Staff for Kakamega County and currently Director of Partnerships at Lake Region Economic Block

Kenya stands at a critical crossroads in its devolved governance journey. More than a decade after the promulgation of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, the country must confront an uncomfortable question: Have county governments fulfilled the promise of bringing power, resources and development closer to the people, or have some of them become expensive centres of political patronage, corruption and impunity?

As millions of young Kenyans struggle to find employment, patients encounter shortages of essential medicines, urban centres grapple with poor waste management, roads deteriorate, and small businesses struggle to survive, questions about the management of public resources become increasingly urgent.

Meanwhile, reports of questionable procurement, mounting pending bills, unsustainable wage expenditures and weak financial controls continue to raise concerns about the effectiveness of county governance.

The irony is difficult to ignore. Institutions established to improve the lives of ordinary citizens are, in some instances, associated with extravagant political lifestyles, wasteful expenditure and questionable accumulation of wealth by individuals entrusted with public resources.

Equitable development

The original promise was never to create 47 political fiefdoms under governors who behave as though winning an election confers personal ownership of a county. Devolution was intended to bring the government closer to the people, improve service delivery, promote equitable development and empower citizens to participate meaningfully in decisions affecting their lives.

The time has come for a serious national conversation about how Kenya can save devolution from the very governance failures it was intended to correct.

The Constitution of Kenya, 2010, established devolution as a fundamental pillar of the country's governance structure. Article 174 sets out its objectives, including promoting democratic and accountable exercise of power, giving people greater powers of self-governance, facilitating public participation, promoting social and economic development, and ensuring equitable sharing of national resources.

Under the centralised system that preceded devolution, communities frequently complained that national development priorities were determined far from their local realities. Regions that lacked political influence often felt neglected.

Devolution was meant to change that arrangement.

A community in Busia, Turkana, Garissa, Kilifi or Nyeri would have a greater opportunity to influence its development priorities through locally elected representatives.

Yet decentralising political authority does not automatically decentralise accountability. When oversight institutions fail, public participation becomes cosmetic and procurement is manipulated, corruption can migrate from the national level to the local level.

That is one of the central governance challenges Kenya must now confront.

A governor is a public officer entrusted with managing the executive functions of a county. The office does not confer ownership of the county's resources, businesses, land, contracts or development priorities.

The same principle applies to members of county executive committees, county assembly members and other public officials.

Winning an election gives a leader a mandate to serve. It does not grant permission to accumulate wealth through public procurement, distribute contracts to political allies or use public resources to finance personal political ambitions.

The distinction between public leadership and personal entitlement appears to have become blurred in parts of our political system.

Where a governor presides over a county experiencing medicine shortages, deteriorating infrastructure and unpaid suppliers while public expenditure remains inadequately explained, citizens are entitled to demand answers.

Personnel emoluments

Where a county government incurs substantial expenditure on projects that remain incomplete, the public deserves to know who approved the expenditure, who received the payments, what was delivered and whether the public obtained value for money.

Where officials acquire wealth that raises credible questions about the legality of its source, the relevant investigative and enforcement institutions must do their work.

One of the most compelling arguments for reform is the cost of maintaining county administrations and assemblies.

The Office of the Auditor-General's county-government summary report for the financial year 2023/24 reported approximately Sh207.99 billion in personnel emoluments for county executives and assemblies combined. The report also highlighted significant problems with county wage bills and the accumulation of pending bills.

These figures demand careful scrutiny because public expenditure must be evaluated against the services citizens receive.

A county government requires qualified personnel. Nurses, doctors, public-health officers, engineers, agricultural extension officers, accountants and other professionals are essential to service delivery. The answer cannot be to indiscriminately reduce the workforce.

The problem arises when payrolls become bloated, political appointments multiply, responsibilities are duplicated and expenditure on administration crowds out essential services.

Every shilling spent on unnecessary administration is a shilling unavailable for another public priority.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.

Isaac Omungo is the former Chief of Staff for Kakamega County and currently Director of Partnerships at Lake Region Economic Block.