The latest report by the Auditor General has predictably revealed persistent accountability issues stalking county governments’ management of public resources.
The report, covering the 2022–2023 audit period, raises concerns over several issues, including procurement irregularities, inflated costs, missing records, and unauthorized expenditures.
Even though the report will be subject to further scrutiny, including by the Senate, the issues raised do little, if any, to disrupt painful familiarities regarding mismanagement of public resources by the devolved units.
If anything, they serve to reinforce and affirm them. The persistence indicates the gaps and inadequacies in the accountability systems to ensure county governments uphold defined standards.
With that in mind, the Senator for Kiambu, Hon. Karungo wa Thang’wa, proposed an amendment to the Senate Standing Orders to compel governors to appear before the Senate plenary to respond to accountability queries.
The shape and design of the oversight mechanism over the devolved units continue to be a subject of contention.
As far back as 2014, governors challenged the arrangement requiring them to appear before the Senate to answer accountability queries.
The explanation of their argument was partly anchored on the fact that county assemblies exist for precisely the same purpose. The Senate, governors argued, should refrain from summoning them but instead, train their focus on the national institutions charged with enabling and facilitating devolution.
The case exhausted the appellate options, and the Supreme Court gave a final judgment in 2022. The apex court held that the Senate has the power to summon governors. Though delivered with finality, the judgment does not insulate the conversation from the court of public opinion.
In some ways, the design of county government mirrors that of the national government. The governor heads the county executive, similar to how the president heads the national executive.
In Parliament, the National Assembly and the Senate exercise oversight powers over the national government in a similar fashion and design; the county assembly oversees or should manage the county executive.
Whereas Parliament legislatively oversees the national executive at a single level, one wonders why the county executive should be subject to a two-layered legislative oversight mechanism: the Senate at the national level and the county assembly at the county level.
Further, Parliament’s oversight of the national executive is through cabinet secretaries.
Initially, they were appearing before committees until recently, when an amendment was introduced that now requires them to appear before the plenary.
The president is hardly a subject of direct parliamentary scrutiny. Why shouldn’t the same apply to a governor?
Governors argued that subjecting counties to direct oversight by the Senate only weakens the oversight role of the county assemblies. This argument is not idle.
Senator Karungo’s proposal reinforces this concern. It heavily shifts the oversight system and focuses on the Senate, mainly at the expense of county assemblies.
It is naturally understandable that county assemblies, through the County Assemblies Forum (CAF), have been among the first to oppose the proposal. Rather than degrade their place, county assemblies should be empowered to assume more power in exercising oversight responsibilities over the counties.
Recently, the Chairperson of the Council of Governors, Anne Waiguru, made a case for the need to grant the assemblies greater autonomy over their budget to secure their space in the management of devolution.
Part of the solution also lies in addressing what I consider a design flaw of our bicameral Parliament. Persistent disagreements between the two Houses over their legislative roles and mandates are symptomatic of the design flaws.
Just last week, the Senate protested how the National Assembly treats the bills from which it originated.
Confining the Senate’s role primarily to be custodian of devolution was wrong. Its mandate should be broadened to include more national roles, like the US Senate.
It will have the double benefit of freeing up space for county assemblies to exercise more oversight powers over county executives while ensuring adequate inter-legislative checks and balances between the Senate and the National Assembly.
