ANNET NERIMA
Africa-Press – Kenya. George Orwell, a critic of totalitarianism, political corruption, and social injustice, warned in Animal Farm that power can blur the line between oppressor and protector.
That warning seemed to play out last week when 40 governors issued a joint statement resolving, among other measures, to suspend appearances before the Senate County Public Accounts Committee and to call for its reconstitution.
It is a tragedy that political interests are overriding the accountability mechanism, allowing governors and senators to manipulate oversight.
Under Article 229 of the Constitution and the Public Audit Act, 2015, the Auditor General plays a central role in safeguarding public resources.
The office audits the accounts of national and county governments, as well as all publicly funded entities, within six months of the financial year-end on June 30.
Reports must be submitted to Parliament and county assemblies by December 31 and made public within seven days. Oversight committees, including the Public Accounts Committee, then scrutinise the findings, summon accounting officers, and demand corrective action. This legal framework is clear and comprehensive.
However, the political reality of its implementation tells a very different story. These oversight bodies, often referred to as “money committees,” are mandated to safeguard public funds. But their membership is rarely neutral; political loyalty and strategic alliances shape appointments, quietly eliminating independent scrutiny.
In early 2025, Parliament witnessed a sweeping purge targeting lawmakers allied to former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua.
Several MPs and senators were removed from powerful committees, including Budget and Appropriation, and reassigned elsewhere amid a broader political realignment. This reinforced the perception that oversight roles are driven by political calculation.
In August 2025, President William Ruto publicly confirmed intelligence reports alleging that some legislators were soliciting bribes from governors, turning parliamentary oversight into what he termed “extortion rings.” Speaking at the devolution conference in Homa Bay, he referenced the so-called “soko huru” system and directed the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission to investigate. Parliament demanded evidence while the Council of Governors acknowledged complaints.
This exposed deep tensions between institutions meant to check each other.
Kenya’s experience is not without precedent. In 2015, the National Assembly dissolved and reconstituted its Public Accounts Committee following allegations of bribery, report tampering, and misuse of confidential funds linked to the Office of the President. The scandal severely dented the credibility of one of Parliament’s key watchdog bodies.
Recent audit reports and public disclosures have continued to flag troubling expenditures of public resources meant for essential services at the county level.
Equally concerning are persistent allegations that governors have been asked to pay millions of shillings to influence how audit queries are handled. Such claims raise questions about whether oversight has become negotiation rather than scrutiny and accountability. If audit reports have consistently flagged concerns for more than a decade, why have accountability outcomes remained so limited?
This conflict is not about senators or governors. It is about public accountability. There is an urgent need to restore genuine accountability, indispensable for a government that its citizens can truly trust.
Programme Manager for Political Accountability in State Institutions at the Kenya Human Rights Commission
Source: The Star
