Skip Navigation

Holding Counties Accountable is the Next Challenge for Civil Society in Kenya

Devolution of government to the counties in Kenya requires civil society to be ever more vigilant if the objectives of devolution have to be achieved. This vigilance is especially required because Kenyan citizens have invested their hopes in these devolved units to empower them to be involved in decision-making processes over matters that affect their lives, redress imbalances in national development and achieve both social and economic development.

Civil society is also required because the existing frameworks for holding county governments to account – which mirror the failed national frameworks – are inadequate. Many County Assemblies are dominated by a single political party or coalition which suggests that there will be no effective opposition to check the excesses of the majority party.

This weakness could be counteracted by the National Assembly and the Senate but both houses are now controlled by the ruling Jubilee Coalition which might be wary of backing close scrutiny that will reveal Jubilee dominated counties in negative light.

The Treasury could be expected to play an oversight role, but there is currently no existing framework for it to exercise this oversight. Even if there was, such a framework is likely to be largely focussed on whether counties have spent money allocated to them as stipulated by law.

The Auditor General could fill this gap, but public sector audits in Kenya have tended to be historical events that chronicle misdeeds long after the proverbial horse has bolted. Furthermore, Auditor General accountability has tended to focus on the financial aspects of accountability – the input side of accountability – and not the wider accountability that is envisaged from county governments.

These gaping holes in accountability could open the door for corruption and other forms of malfeasance unless civil society becomes more vigilant.

Just like it has done in matters such as elections, civil society will have to educate county citizens on how they can participate in the decision-making processes of their counties and hold them accountable without resorting to rungus (clubs).

Firstly, civil society would have to be directly involved in county discussions and decisions at four stages.

Secondly, it will have to be actively involved in discussions and decisions regarding the priorities of the county both in the short term and long term.

Thirdly, civil society will have to be involved in budgetary discussions regarding the allocation of funding among the competing priorities of the county and the allocation of revenue among these competing priorities.

Next, civil society will have to turn up at county meetings to question the county governments regarding how they spent the money and what they have achieved with it.

Finally, where county governments prove unwilling to be accountable, there will be need to mobilise county residents to force the governments to answer or pursue justice in the courts. This role requires people who are committed, because this is not a paid role. Often, individuals and groups will not be rewarded for their incessant questioning.

Since the new Kenyan Government has indicated that it considers counties to be central to the achievement of the nation’s economic development goals, it might consider funding civil society groups to carry out some of these outlined roles. The counties are therefore the new frontiers for civil society to hold the government to account. The historical failures of the established political and financial guardian institutions and the spatial dispersal of counties means that civil society cannot afford to sleep, at least in the initial years of county government.

Robert Ochoki Nyamori

Associate professor

Department of Accounting

La Trobe University

Bundoora 3086

Victoria, Australia

Tel +6194791642

Email: r.nyamori@latrobe.edu.au

 

Image source: Nairobi 2010-2011, by Dan Kori, via Flickr

 

Open Government Partnership