ADVERT 
ADVERTThe growing controversy over delayed July and August salaries for county government employees in Siaya, Nairobi and Bungoma has quickly acquired a familiar political explanation: the National Treasury has failed to remit money to counties.
But a closer examination of the available evidence suggests that this narrative is, at best, incomplete and, at worst, a convenient political escape route for county administrations facing their own budgetary and financial-management problems.
The facts point to a more complicated picture in which national disbursements, county budget approval, appropriation, Controller of Budget authorisation and internal financial processes all intersect.
The first important fact is that Kenya has 47 county governments, yet the salary problem has not emerged as a uniform crisis across all 47 counties. That matters.
If the fundamental problem were simply that the National Treasury had failed to release the money required to pay county workers, the logical expectation would be a much wider and more consistent national crisis. Instead, the delays have been concentrated in a relatively small number of counties, with the explanations varying from one county to another.
ADVERT
The national financing framework for 2026/27 is also not in doubt. Parliament approved the County Allocation of Revenue Bill, providing KSh428 billion in equitable-share revenue for the 47 counties. President William Ruto assented to the legislation on June 29, completing the legal framework for distributing the county share of nationally raised revenue.
That does not absolve the National Treasury of responsibility. Treasury has previously been criticised over delays in releasing county funds, and counties remain constitutionally entitled to their equitable share. But establishing that Treasury has occasionally delayed funds is not the same as proving that Treasury caused the present salary crisis in every affected county.
Indeed, the documents from the counties themselves provide some of the strongest evidence against the blanket Treasury-blame narrative.
In Siaya, an internal memo dated August 19 says the delay in paying July and August salaries was principally caused by the prolonged completion of the FY2026/27 budget process. The county administration says the incomplete process constrained the full operationalisation of its financial and expenditure processes and that salaries would be settled once the outstanding budget process was concluded.
That is a fundamentally different explanation from saying that the National Treasury simply refused to send Siaya its money.
Nairobi’s own communication tells a similar story. In a circular dated August 10, City Hall informed employees that the delay in July salaries had been occasioned by delays in the approval and uploading of the county budget. The county said the situation had affected the processing and release of funds and assured employees that salaries would be paid once the necessary processes were completed.
Again, the language is revealing. Nairobi did not tell its employees that Treasury had failed to remit its equitable share. It pointed to its own budgetary and administrative processes.
Nairobi’s FY2026/27 budget was eventually approved by the County Assembly on July 28, almost a month after the statutory deadline for the new financial year had passed. That alone demonstrates how political and institutional disagreements surrounding county budgeting can have direct consequences for ordinary employees.
Bungoma presents an even stronger challenge to the Treasury-blame theory.
The county’s August 3 internal memo explicitly states that it had received both the June and July 2026 disbursements from the National Government. The county then says it was awaiting approval by the Controller of Budget to facilitate the processing and payment of the June and July salaries.
That is difficult to reconcile with the claim that Bungoma workers were unpaid because the National Government had failed to remit the county’s money.
Taita Taveta, whose internal memo is also available, provides another useful comparison. The county similarly stated that it had received the June and July disbursements but was awaiting Controller of Budget approval before salaries could be processed and paid.
These cases expose an important distinction that has been largely lost in the political debate: the arrival of county funds and the lawful ability of a county government to spend those funds are not necessarily the same thing.
There is a financial chain that must work. Money must be allocated and disbursed by the National Treasury; the county must have an approved and properly uploaded budget and appropriation framework; the necessary authorisations must be in place; the Controller of Budget must approve lawful withdrawals where required; and the county must then process its payroll and make the actual payments.
A breakdown at any point can affect salaries.
This is why simply asking whether Treasury sent the money does not provide the complete answer.
The Constitution and public-finance laws place substantial responsibility on county governments to prepare and approve their budgets within prescribed timelines. Where counties fail to complete the necessary budget processes, their ability to access and lawfully spend public funds can be constrained.
That problem is not theoretical.
Kenya has previously witnessed counties struggle to access funds because of incomplete or non-compliant budgets. The Controller of Budget has in the past returned county budgets for failing to comply with legal and planning requirements, with such delays threatening salaries and essential services.
There is therefore a legitimate question to be asked about the political management of county governments.
County assemblies and executives have enormous responsibilities in the budget process. Where political disagreements between governors and MCAs drag on, appointments become battlegrounds, financial departments are paralysed by leadership disputes and budget approval is delayed, the consequences eventually reach the very people who have the least influence over those political battles: county workers and residents.
Siaya provides a particularly instructive example. Its budget process has been accompanied by institutional disagreements within the county’s financial and administrative structures. Whether every disagreement directly contributed to the salary delay is a matter requiring evidence, but the broader lesson is unmistakable: weak coordination and prolonged political disputes can interfere with the machinery required to keep government functioning.
The same scrutiny should apply to governors.
Governors have increasingly become prominent players in national political contests, with some spending considerable political energy on issues extending well beyond the day-to-day responsibilities of county administration. Political positioning ahead of 2027 is already intensifying, and county leaders are inevitably becoming involved in wider national alignments and succession politics.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a governor participating in national political discourse. They are citizens and political leaders. But there is a serious problem when political mobilisation appears to compete with the more mundane responsibilities of running a county government.
A governor can attend political rallies, build alliances and debate national politics, but employees still expect salaries to be processed on time. Hospitals still require medicines. Garbage still needs to be collected. Roads still require maintenance. Contractors still expect legitimate bills to be settled.
Political leadership cannot become an excuse for administrative paralysis.
At the same time, it would be intellectually dishonest to absolve the National Treasury completely.
Treasury has a constitutional obligation to facilitate the transfer of resources to counties. Where the national government fails to meet approved disbursement schedules, counties have every right to complain and demand accountability.
The Senate has previously raised concerns about delays in county cash disbursements. Such concerns cannot simply be dismissed because some counties have received their money.
But the question in this particular salary controversy is narrower: Did delayed national remittances cause the July-August salary delays in Siaya, Nairobi and Bungoma?
The evidence presently available does not support such a sweeping conclusion.
In Bungoma, the county says it received the relevant national disbursements.
In Taita Taveta, the county says the same.
In Nairobi, the county directly attributed its salary delay to budget approval and uploading.
In Siaya, the county directly attributed the July-August delay to the prolonged budget process.
The pattern therefore points towards a combination of factors rather than a single national-government failure.
And this is where the politics of the matter becomes particularly interesting.
Blaming Treasury is politically attractive because it moves responsibility upwards. A county administration can present itself as the victim of a national government that has allegedly starved devolution of resources. But where the county has actually received money, or where its own budget has not been approved, uploaded or authorized for expenditure, that argument becomes considerably weaker.
County governments must therefore answer uncomfortable questions of their own.
When was the county budget approved?
When was it uploaded?
When was the appropriation law enacted?
Was a vote-on-account mechanism available and, if so, was it properly utilized?
When did the county receive its equitable share?
How much money was actually sitting in the County Revenue Fund?
When was the salary requisition submitted?
When did the Controller of Budget approve the withdrawal?
When was the payroll processed?
And, most importantly, where exactly did the process stop?
Those are questions that can be answered with documents rather than political speeches.
The public should demand those answers from both sides.
Treasury should publish evidence of what it has disbursed and when. Counties should publish evidence showing what they received, what they requisitioned, what approvals they obtained and when they processed payroll.
That would end the blame game.
The available evidence therefore points to a verdict of misleading on the claim that the salary delays are simply the result of delayed national-government remittances.
There may well be national-level delays in parts of the county financing chain. But the documents from Siaya, Nairobi and Bungoma point to significant county-level budget and expenditure-processing problems as well.
The most revealing fact may ultimately be that the crisis is not affecting all 47 counties in the same way.
That suggests this is not simply a story about whether Nairobi sends money to counties.
It is a story about what happens after the money is supposed to arrive.
And that is where both governors and the National Treasury must be held accountable.
For county employees waiting for their salaries, however, the political distinctions offer little comfort. Whether the money is stuck in Nairobi, in a county treasury, in a budget document, in IFMIS or awaiting approval, the result is the same: a public servant who has worked for an entire month is still waiting to be paid.
That is not merely an accounting problem.
It is a failure of public administration—and both levels of government have a responsibility to explain it.
