Premium
Devolution and deferred accountability
Kirinyaga Governor Anne Waiguru (centre) with her colleagues during a past media briefing in Nairobi.
Since the advent of devolution in the 2013/2014 financial year, the National Treasury has transferred more than Sh3.7 trillion to Kenya’s 47 county governments. The scale of this fiscal decentralisation is unprecedented in the country’s history.
New health facilities have been built, early childhood education has expanded, and local infrastructure has improved. Yet beneath these visible gains lies a growing concern: while power has been devolved, accountability has not kept pace. Oversight institutions appear compromised, political patronage thrives, and public finance management weaknesses persist.
For over a decade, devolution has stood as Kenya’s most consequential governance reform: a bold attempt to cure political marginalisation, regional inequality, and the winner-takes-all politics that long defined the country’s power structure. By transferring political, fiscal, and administrative authority to the counties, the 2010 Constitution promised to bring government and resources closer to the people and communities historically left behind.
The critical question, therefore, is not whether devolution was necessary: it was. The real test is whether Kenya has built the institutional discipline required to safeguard it.
Devolution funds
The Office of the Auditor-General has consistently raised serious accountability concerns regarding counties’ use of devolution funds. The Auditor-General has flagged underutilised development budgets, irregular procurement, conflict of interest, and poor financial reporting. Similarly, the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission 2024/2025 report shows county governments lead in the number of cases under investigation. Together, these reports present a stark indictment of accountability in county public finance.
Who is responsible for ensuring counties use public funds responsibly, and are they effective?
One of the primary institutions tasked with oversight is the county assembly. The Constitution mandates assemblies to legislate, review, and approve budgets, development plans, and financial statements, and to oversee service delivery. Yet assemblies consistently struggle to hold county executives accountable. Governors often deploy political patronage, awarding contracts and employment opportunities to supporters and relatives in exchange for loyalty. This influence extends to House leadership, including the Speaker, Leader of the Majority, and Whip, who frequently fail to enforce recommendations from oversight committees. The result is assemblies that are largely unable to check executive excess, with political loyalty prioritised over public interest.
Limited technical and administrative capacity further undermines accountability. Many MCAs lack the skills to interrogate budgets and programs effectively, while some counties struggle to attract and retain qualified technocrats for finance and procurement functions. Without this expertise, oversight and execution both suffer, creating opportunities for mismanagement, budget overruns, and irregular expenditures.
Accountability challenges
Weak enforcement of laws compounds accountability challenges. Regulatory bodies often fail to act decisively, while overlaps and ambiguities in the roles of national and county governments create loopholes.
Coupled with a culture of impunity that tolerates poor performance and rarely punishes misuse of public resources, these gaps allow mismanagement and corruption to persist despite constitutional safeguards.
The Senate, mandated under Article 96, serves as a guardian of county interests. Its responsibilities include determining the national revenue-sharing formula, legislating on matters affecting counties, and overseeing fund utilisation. Senate committees can summon county executives to answer questions on governance and financial management. However, senators sometimes prioritise political alliances and party loyalty over accountability, undermining their ability to enforce fiscal discipline.
Kenya must now confront an uncomfortable truth: power has indeed been devolved. Accountability, however, remains deferred. The survival and credibility of devolution depend on closing that dangerous gap.
Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.
Mr Williams, CPSP-K, is a supply chain specialist, ethics and governance expert
