The National Treasury has apportioned Sh3 billion to finance public participation on the country’s Sh4.3 trillion budget for the 2025/26 financial year across a select 13 counties.
This means that Parliament will spend about Sh230.7 million in each of the 13 counties.
This comes at a time when some MPs have raised questions on the use of public participation funds, claiming that there are vested interests within the House’s Budget and Appropriations Committee (BAC) with some devolved units being excluded from the successive rounds of the sessions despite a policy for rotation.
It emerged that Vihiga and Kakamega counties that were to benefit from the public hearings for the current 2024/25 budget were excluded in unclear circumstances.
It has been the practice of the National Assembly that in every budget-making process, BAC moves around the country to conduct public participation in selected counties, usually on a rotational basis.
Kitui Central MP Makali Mulu, who has been a member of BAC since he became MP in 2013 until his removal recently, says that at least Sh100 million that goes to each selected devolved unit is used to finance projects that people feel are important in their constituencies.
“These development projects are meant to ensure that every corner of this country benefits as the people have a say in what they want implemented,” said Dr Mulu.
The one-month-long public participation exercise undertaken by the BAC starts once the printed estimates for the national government have been tabled in the National Assembly.
Article 221 (1) of the Constitution and section 38 of the Public Finance Management (PFM) Act state that the estimates shall be tabled in the National Assembly by April 30 every financial year, which is two months before the end of the financial year.
Part 5 of Article 221 of the Constitution requires BAC to seek public views on the budget estimates and consider their recommendations when finalising its report to the House for consideration.
In the life of the current 13th Parliament, 34 counties – 18 and 16 spread in the last two financial years – have already benefited.
During the consideration of the estimates for the current financial year, in line with the established tradition of receiving budget submissions from all the counties on a rotational basis, BAC sought views on key expenditure priorities from 18 selected counties.
The counties include Mombasa, Kilifi, Machakos, Taita Taveta, Kiambu, Murang’a, Nakuru, Baringo, Kericho, Narok, Kisumu, Nyamira, Meru, Mandera, Homa Bay, Turkana and Nairobi.
When preparing the 2023/24 budget, BAC held public hearings in 16 selected counties – Nyandarua, Kirinyaga, Marsabit, Garissa, Tana River, Lamu, Siaya, Kisii, Bomet, West Pokot, Bungoma, Busia, Tharaka Nithi, Kitui, Kajiado and Embu.
The remaining 13 counties that were left out during the public hearings for the 2024/25 fiscal year, including Vihiga and Kakamega, were to be involved in the public hearings for the 2025/26 financial year budget.
The Kenyan public participation exercise, borrowed from the US Pork barrel model, is meant to ensure equality in the distribution of the BAC kitty.
Pork barrel is used in reference to the use of government funds for projects designed to appeal to the voters or MPs and in the process win the trust of the people.
Claims of suspected abuse of the kitty became evident on March 11, 2025, on the floor of the National Assembly after MPs, led by leader of majority Kimani Ichung’wah (Kikuyu) and his minority colleague Junet Mohamed (Suna East), accused former BAC chairperson Ndindi Nyoro (Kiharu MP) of abusing his powers.
Mr Ichung’wah and Mr Junet said the skewed allocation of the BAC kitty contributed Mr Nyoro’s removal from the committee’s leadership.
“It is true that the public participation process in the budget-making process has been grossly abused,” said Mr Ichung’wah. According to the Kikuyu MP, Sh2 billion was set aside for public participation every year but “those who sat in the BAC found it prudent or imprudent, whatever the case may be, to put an additional Sh10 billion”.
Mr Junet said that for the past two years, “what has happened in the BAC border on criminality”.
“If we are to lay bare those things, as discussed in the retreat in Naivasha and the House Business Committee, we cannot shy away from talking about those atrocities,” said Mr Junet. “The beneficiaries of the Sh12 billion are not counties where public participation took place but other constituencies and counties.”
However, Dr Mulu dismissed Mr Ichung’wah’s and Mr Junet’s accusations against Mr Nyoro, saying that influential individuals, including senior figures in the executive and parliament, secretly oversaw the ballooning of the BAC kitty.
“The influential individuals, including some of those making noise now, abused the process by secretly inserting their own projects that saw the allocation to the public participation kitty increase exponentially,” said Dr Mulu.
Mr Ichung’wah – the former BAC chairperson before he was removed unceremoniously – and Mr Junet made their accusations against Mr Nyoro following complaints from Emuhaya MP Omboko Milemba in what looked like a well-guided script.
Mr Milemba claimed that Vihiga County was left out of the process and his Navakholo colleague Emmanuel Wangwe saying the same about Kakamega County.
“A guillotine was placed on public participation that disadvantaged Vihiga and other counties. Money was genuinely allocated for public participation but it is not known where the additional money went to. One constituency was allocated up to Sh1 billion for public participation,” said Mr Milemba.
“This is not part of the real public participation that is provided for by the Constitution. Therefore, my county, Vihiga, lost on roads, schools and all the money it was allocated because of public participation,” he added.
Mr Wangwe said, “The same amount which was supposed to benefit Kakamega County in its entirety was not disbursed despite the fact that we voted in this House.”
Luanda MP Dick Oyugi said that “the challenge came when the funds that had been allocated were increased to a level where it was felt that some counties would benefit more than others”.
Dr Mulu said that the money allocated for Vihiga and Kakamega, and any other county that may have missed out, is not lost.
“The funds will still be made available for the counties. It was never a lost course,” he said.
