Overview
Devolution in the 2010 constitution created 47 county governments with their own budgets and procurement authority. Counties immediately became sites of corruption as county officials diverted ward development funds, engaged in procurement fraud, and stole development resources. The proliferation of 47 new corruption centers undermined rather than advanced development.
Ward Development Funds
Counties receive ward development funds allocated to local development. Ward funds are supposed to be spent on infrastructure, service delivery, or bursaries supporting local priorities. However, ward funds are systematically stolen by ward administrators, county executives, and politicians.
A ward allocated KES 10 million in development funds may have KES 3-5 million actually reach projects, with the remainder stolen or wasted through overpriced contracts.
County Procurement
County governments undertake procurement for goods and services. Procurement officers have engaged in bid rigging, contract inflation, and payment for goods not delivered.
The scale of county procurement is substantial: 47 counties each with millions of shillings in annual procurement authority create massive opportunity for corruption.
Governor Prosecutions
Some governors have been prosecuted for corruption or have faced public pressure due to corruption allegations. High-profile prosecutions have included charges of embezzlement or misappropriation.
However, prosecutions have been inconsistent. Some governors implicated in corruption have not faced charges, suggesting selective enforcement based on political relationships.
County Service Delivery
Corruption in counties directly impacts service delivery. A county health facility intended to serve a population may not function because equipment and drug budgets were stolen. A county road project may not be completed because resources were diverted.
Citizens in counties experience the direct impacts of local corruption in ways that national-level corruption may be more distant.
Devolution as Opportunity Structure
Devolution was intended to bring government closer to citizens and enable local participation in decision-making. However, it also created 47 new opportunities for corruption and created new local power structures that consolidated corruption rather than reducing it.
The multiplication of government levels (national, county, sub-county, ward) created multiple layers of corruption rather than a single hierarchy.
Accountability Challenges at Local Level
County oversight mechanisms are weaker than national mechanisms. County assemblies (the legislative branch) have limited capacity to oversee county executives. Local civil society organizations may lack resources to monitor local corruption.
This creates a situation where corruption may be more consequential at the local level (affecting daily lives of ordinary people) but is less effectively monitored.
See Also
- Corruption in Kenya Overview
- County Governments and Corruption
- Corruption and Service Delivery
- Auditor General Role
- Corruption Networks Kenya