Since the advent of devolution in Kenya, the structure of county governments was designed to bring governance closer to the people, improving service delivery and fostering inclusive development. Central to this vision was the partnership between governors and their deputies, intended as a united leadership team delivering on electoral mandates framed in dynamic manifestos. Yet, in the years following the 2022 elections, a disturbing trend has emerged—public and frequent feuds between governors and deputy governors that undermine governance, disrupt service delivery, and erode public trust. This deteriorating relationship signals a governance impasse that threatens to erode the gains of devolution unless decisive solutions are adopted.
At the core of this crisis lies a fundamental constitutional ambiguity. The Constitution of Kenya, in Article 179, defines the deputy governor primarily as the principal assistant to the governor, tasked with deputizing during the governor’s absence. However, it leaves largely undefined the deputy’s authority in decision-making and daily governance. This creates a power vacuum exploited by governors who often perceive deputies as political threats or rivals instead of collaborators. Adding to the tension, Article 181 positions the deputy governor as the automatic successor in the event of a gubernatorial vacancy, injecting a latent political contest element into the relationship. The absence of clear role demarcation has laid fertile ground for protracted disputes.
Efforts to address this must commence with constitutional and legal reforms. It is imperative to revisit the legislative frameworks governing county leadership to spell out explicitly the roles, functions, and decision-making powers of deputy governors. By establishing a comprehensive legal mandate for deputies, including specific duties, involvement in key county committees, and oversight roles, the law can guide a balance between gubernatorial leadership and deputy governor inclusion. Moreover, clear legal procedures for conflict resolution should be embedded within county government statutes, enabling systematic management of disputes before they escalate publicly and degrade governance standards.
In parallel, institutionalizing conflict resolution mechanisms within county governments is non-negotiable. Independent mediation bodies or arbitration panels, staffed by neutral parties versed in governance and public administration, should be established. These entities would have the mandate to intervene promptly whenever tussles arise between governors and deputies, facilitating dialogue and negotiation in a confidential setting. Such institutional interventions depoliticize conflicts and foster consensus-building, reducing disruptive public falls outs. Counties benefiting from such institutionalized processes can focus on service delivery rather than management of internal political crises.
Another critical dimension is fostering a culture of shared vision and joint strategic planning. From the inception of their term, governors and deputies must commit to a unified governance agenda based on their manifestos. Counties should mandate scheduled joint planning sessions, involving the entire executive team, with an emphasis on aligning priorities, coordinating resource allocation, and synchronizing policy execution. Regular joint reviews of progress should be institutionalized, reinforcing partnership values and early identification of potential conflicts. These practices transform elected leaders from political competitors into co-stewards of public trust and resources.
Political parties hold substantial responsibility in mitigating these leadership battles. It is crucial that parties institute stringent vetting criteria assessing candidate compatibility, shared ideological orientations, and commitment to collaborative governance rather than convenience or ethnic balancing alone. Political parties must invest in team-building and leadership development programs post-election for governors and deputies, preparing them for the realities and challenges of joint leadership. Parties should also remain actively engaged throughout the term, promoting reconciliation and partnership over factionalism.
Equally important is the role of civic education and voter engagement in shaping leadership expectations. The electorate must be empowered to demand unity and coherent teamwork from county leadership during election cycles, rejecting candidates or ticket combinations likely to breed rivalry. Civic education programs can raise citizen awareness about the importance of cooperative governance to effective service delivery, encouraging voters to hold joint leadership accountable as a unit rather than favoring individual personalities. This grassroots pressure incentivizes leaders to maintain working relationships for fear of electoral repercussions fueled by divided campaigns.
To strengthen governance coherence further, robust enforcement and accountability mechanisms must be enhanced at all levels of county government. Clear codes of conduct governing interpersonal relations among county executives should be enforced, with sanctions for those engaging in obstructionism, abuse of office, or undermining their partners. Legal and political accountability promotes seriousness in maintaining functional leadership teams. Equally, whistleblower protections and transparent grievance mechanisms will further expose and discourage divisive behavior detrimental to public interest.
A vital yet often overlooked aspect is cultivating a governance culture that prizes collaboration and punishes factionalism. Senior public servants and county CEOs must lead by example, cultivating executive environments where teamwork, mutual respect, and professional cooperation are rewarded. Performance reviews and incentives can be designed to prioritize collective achievements over individual power plays. By fostering this culture internally, counties empower their public servants to function efficiently irrespective of political drama upstairs.
National-level reforms also contribute to better county leadership cohesion. The government’s ongoing devolution reforms, including those promoted by the Council of Governors and institutions like the Kenya Devolution Institute, stress leadership training, policy standardization, and knowledge-sharing on best practices. These platforms not only offer capacity building but also create peer accountability among counties to uphold governance standards. Embracing such national initiatives helps synchronize leadership competencies and conflict resolution methods across Kenya’s diverse county governments.
It is instructive to look at positive examples to draw lessons for wider application. Counties that have maintained collaborative governor-deputy relationships demonstrate that partnership yields tangible dividends—improved healthcare services, youth employment programs, women’s empowerment initiatives, and agricultural productivity. These successes affirm leadership scholars’ assertion that “effective leadership is defined by results, not attributes.” Through shared commitment and regular dialogue, collaborative leadership transcends politics and focuses on delivering outcomes.
These multi-layered approaches jointly pave the way out of Kenya’s current leadership impasse in devolved governance. Clarifying legal roles resolves systemic ambiguity; institutionalizing conflict mediation mechanisms addresses disputes before public collapse; fostering shared vision and joint planning cultivates teamwork; political party reforms ensure candidate compatibility and sustain collaboration; civic education mobilizes electorate demands for unity; enforcing accountability frameworks discourages obstructionism; nurturing a cooperative governance culture promotes teamwork; and leveraging national devolution reforms enhances leadership capacity and uniformity. Combined, these measures form a robust framework to restore and sustain harmony between governors and deputy governors, thus reinforcing the very foundation of devolved governance.
Kenya stands at a defining crossroads. The persistent feuds between governors and deputy governors threaten to unravel the transformative promise of devolution—bringing governance closer to the people, accelerating development, and improving the quality of life. However, the path to renewed unity is neither hidden nor unattainable. It demands leadership maturity, legal clarity, and proactive institutional support. Every stakeholder—from political leaders to citizens, from public servants to civil society—must commit to building a governance culture anchored on collaboration and accountability.
As leadership scholar Ronald Heifetz mused, “Leadership is the art of giving people a platform for spreading ideas that work.” For Kenya’s devolved system to fulfill its potential, governors and their deputies must embrace this definition, becoming partners who build platforms of trust, shared purpose, and effective service delivery. The future of county governance depends not on personalities but on a leadership ethos that places the people’s welfare above political rivalry. The time to reclaim unity for devolved governance is now.
This expanded opinion piece can be adapted for publication in journals, newspapers, or policy forums, and it thoroughly discusses practical, multi-dimensional solutions to the governor-deputy relationship crisis without naming individuals. If you want, I can also help create supporting materials or policy briefs based on this comprehensive narrative.
James’ Kilonzo Bwire is a Media and communication practitioner.
Leave a Reply