In Kenya’s devolved government system, the principle of checks and balances is critical to ensuring accountability, transparency, and good governance. However, the stark disparity between the enormous resources controlled by county governors and the relatively limited authority and capacity of Members of County Assembly (MCAs) raises serious concerns about the efficacy of oversight in our counties. MP Silvanus Osoro’s pointed assertion that a county governor controlling billions of shillings cannot be effectively overseen by an MCA strikes at the heart of this ongoing challenge.
County governors wield significant power as custodians of massive budgets, often running into billions of shillings annually. These funds are intended to fuel development projects, improve service delivery, and transform the lives of citizens at the grassroots. Governors also have the authority to oversee procurement processes, hire county personnel, and administer policies that affect every facet of county life. With such expansive control over financial and administrative resources, governors occupy a position of immense influence within the devolved system.
On the other hand, MCAs, who are constitutionally mandated to provide oversight, represent the legislative arm at the county level. Their role is to scrutinize the county executive’s activities, ensure public funds are used appropriately, approve budgets, and champion the interests of their constituents. Yet, despite this critical mandate, MCAs often operate with limited resources, inadequate capacity, and restricted access to vital information needed to perform their duties effectively. This imbalance creates a systemic weakness that undermines the intended checks and balances framework.
Effective oversight is not simply a matter of authority granted by law but requires practical empowerment. Oversight bodies must have access to technical expertise, legal support, and independent audit information to track and challenge financial decisions. Without these tools, MCAs struggle to hold governors fully accountable, allowing mismanagement, inefficiencies, and corruption to go unchecked. For instance, numerous county audits and reports by oversight institutions have unveiled cases of inflated tenders, ghost projects, and irregular procurement practices where legislative oversight was either bypassed or ineffective.
Furthermore, the power disparity translates into a political vulnerability for MCAs. Governors, with their control over large budgets and patronage networks, often wield influence over the political careers of MCAs. This can manifest through the allocation of development funds to certain wards, employment opportunities, or even through political intimidation. Such dynamics create a conflict of interest for MCAs who are supposed to act independently but may feel pressured to align with the governor’s agenda to secure benefits for their constituencies or protect their political futures. This milieu diminishes the MCA’s ability to function as a credible and fearless watchdog.
The limited capacity of MCAs also affects public trust in county governments. When oversight mechanisms appear weak or ineffective, citizens become disillusioned with the devolution process, perceiving it as a system that empowers a few politically connected elites while failing to deliver tangible benefits to the broader population. The erosion of this trust is detrimental to democratic governance and can breed apathy, lower civic participation, and encourage social tensions.
Addressing this imbalance requires a holistic approach. First, the institutional capacity of the county assemblies must be strengthened through adequate financing, skills development, legal reforms, and infrastructural support. Providing MCAs access to independent audit reports and investigative resources can equip them to perform rigorous oversight. Second, institutional mechanisms should be put in place to safeguard MCAs against political victimization, allowing them to act with independence and integrity. Third, public participation in county oversight should be enhanced by promoting transparency and involving communities in monitoring county projects and expenditures, thereby creating an additional layer of accountability.
The disparity also invites a broader policy conversation about the structure of devolved governance. While governors are rightly entrusted with large budgets to foster county development, the oversight mechanisms must evolve in tandem to ensure these powers are not abused. Strengthening the legislature at the county level is essential to preventing mismanagement and promoting sustainable development outcomes in line with the aspirations behind Kenya’s devolution framework.
In conclusion, MP Silvanus Osoro’s assertion highlights a critical and urgent governance dilemma. The enormous financial power of county governors contrasts sharply with the constrained capacity of MCAs to perform effective oversight. To safeguard the gains of devolution, it is imperative that MCAs be empowered with adequate resources, independence, and support to hold county executives accountable. Only then can devolution fulfill its promise of bringing government closer to the people, enhancing transparency, and delivering equitable development across all counties. Without addressing this imbalance, the goal of accountable, transparent, and people-centered governance will remain elusive.
James’ Kilonzo Bwire is a Media and communication practitioner.
Leave a Reply