Governor seats a test in citizen choices

By David Wanjala

This month’s election is  significant for two major reasons; it ends a mandatory two term tenure of a ruling President and two, which is perhaps more significant, pulls down the curtains on pioneer county governors that were lucky to have been reelected in 2017 to serve for two consecutive terms. The Constitution restricts the terms for governors, just like for the presidency, to two uninterrupted terms.

Devolution was created by the 2010 Constitution to enhance equity in resource distribution, bring decision-making and service delivery closer to the people and enable the realization of the right to self-determination. It is hailed as the best thing to have happened to Kenya since independence.

The Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, which stipulates the division of functions between the national government and county governments, apportioned the latter responsibility over many functions including, but not limited to agriculture, county health services, cultural activities, public entertainment and amenities, county transport and infrastructure,  animal control and welfare, trade development and regulation and county planning and development, among others.

The equitable share, being the money Parliament shares vertically between the national and the county governments, forms the biggest source of revenue for the county governments.

It is the Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA) that recommended to Parliament the basis for equitable sharing of revenues raised nationally. It has specifically allocated 84.5% of the national revenue to the national government, 15% to the county governments and reserved 0.5% as an Equalization Fund. This is the formula that has worked for the ten years of devolution with determining how much share each of the 47 counties should get of the 15% remaining the elephant in the room for CRA for the entire period.

One of the main objectives of devolution was to cure regional inequality that had been brought about by decades of targeted marginalization of certain regions and communities. The Equalization Fund earmarked this specific objective of Devolution. Art. 204(2) states thus, “The national government shall use the Equalisation Fund only to provide basic services including water, roads, health facilities and electricity to marginalised areas to the extent necessary to bring the quality of those services in those areas to the level generally enjoyed by the rest of the nation, so far as possible.”

Sharing of the 15% of the national revenue has not been CRA’s piece of cake for various reasons, among them being that counties are not homogeneous. Counties are unique demographically and, therefore, any allocation criterion is, naturally inclined to favour a county against the other. CRA picked on five parameters for which it allocated as near percentage weights as possible and it is what has seen the counties through for the last ten years, the grumbling of some counties notwithstanding. 

Population was given 45 percentage weight, poverty index 20, land area 8, basic equal share 25 and fiscal responsibility 2 percentage weight. This implies counties received a greater share of revenue the larger their population, the higher their poverty levels and the larger their land mass. Since all the counties faced fixed governance costs, 25% of the revenues were shared equally across all 47 counties.

Besides the equitable share, counties also make money through local revenue. Article 209 (3) of the Constitution empowers county governments to impose two types of taxes and charges that also form sources of county government revenue:; these are property rates and entertainment taxes. County governments can also impose charges for any services they provide in accordance with the stipulated laws, which may include rates, single business permits, parking fees, building permits, and fees from billboards and advertisements.

According to County Governments’ Cash Disbursement Schedule for Financial Year 2021/2022, some of the highest earners of the equitable share include Nairobi at approx. Sh19.25 billion, Nakuru Sh13 billion, Kakamega Sh12.4 billion, Kiambu Sh11.72 billion, Kilifi Sh11.6 billion, Mandera Sh11.2 billion, Bungoma Sh10.7 billion and Kitui at Sh10.4 billion. The lowest earner is Lamu County at Sh3.1 billion. In the category of minimum earners also fall Tharaka Nithi at Sh4.2 billion, Elgeyo Marakwet Sh4.6 billion, and Isiolo County at Sh4.7 billion

If we were to use the FY 2021/2022 disbursements as the average yearly disbursements to the counties for the last ten years, then Bungoma with Sh10.7 billion for the FY 2021/2022 has earned approximately Sh107 billion without local revenue in the last ten years of devolution. Nairobi earned approx. Sh192.5 billion in the same period and Kakamega Sh124 billion. Even the least, Lamu County, earned Sh31 billion. These are no small monies.

The question arises: how has your county utilized its billions since 2013?

Ten years on, Kenya’s 47 counties can be grouped into three general categories as far as county leadership goes. One, counties that were lucky, and they are few, from the advent of devolution, to get visionary leaders, good managers for governors who were also reelected in 2017. They have made many strides, and because of continuity earned through reelection, they have not only been able to complete their projects, but have also been able to entrench foundations of accountability and good governance. Makueni, wrangles in Governor Kivutha Kibwana’s first regime notwithstanding, Governor Wycliffe Oparanya’s Kakamega and Salim Mvurya’s Kwale fall in this category.

Two, counties that were unlucky with their first governors but quickly redeemed themselves by voting out those governors in the earliest opportunity possible in the 2017 General Election. There are also few counties in this category, among them being Kisumu. These are counties in which nothing moved other than wrangles in the assemblies for county resources, coups and counter-coups against county leadership and numerous benchmarking trips abroad. They were also characterized by delayed salaries for county employees, sometimes for months on end, and zero development records. The fast reawakening of these counties and quick move to fix the mistake saved them early and put them on the right track to achieve the objectives of Devolution. Prof Anyang Nyong’o has, for instance, transformed Kisumu in the five years of his first term that locals marvel at just how spectacularly the first governor failed.

The last category, in which a majority of the counties fall, comprise of counties that got it wrong with their county leadership from day one and have had to endure rogue, scandalous leadership for the last ten years. Apart from the ills identified in group two above, the leadership of these counties were also characterized by over-employment and struggled under the weight of wage bills that surpassed ceilings. Their governors rubbed shoulders with the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission investigators for financial impropriety and have spent much of their time in the corridors of justice and circumventing the same. One only hopes that the law will finally catch up with these corrupt governors.

This last category which, unfortunately, plays host to the majority of the counties, has a silver lining with the coming to an end of the two terms of their leaders. They must take opportunity, and, with hindsight of the suffering they have endured for the last ten years, and put integrity and track record first in electing their next leaders. It would be tragic if they were to repeat the same mistake. Ten years of poor leadership can be redeemed; 15 or 20 years of lost opportunity would be absolutely difficult to recover from.

What would be worse however, is if the first category got it wrong in this election. It would be painful, for example, for Makueni County to elect a leader that lacks in the integrity, commitment and vision of its first governor, and watch helplessly as the new governor undid ten years’ worth of strides in foundations of accountability, public participation and people-centred development for the next five years. (