Maliba Arnold Nyajayi
Africa-Press – Kenya. There is a persistent — and politically convenient — narrative circulating in public discourse: that by signing a collaboration agreement between the National Government and the Nairobi County Government, the national executive is somehow “helping” the capital city to function.
That framing may serve a communications purpose, but it deserves closer constitutional and economic examination.
Nairobi is not simply another devolved unit among Kenya’s forty-seven counties. It is the administrative seat of the Republic, the diplomatic hub of the region, and a primary engine of Kenya’s formal economy.
The city performs a hybrid function — operating simultaneously as a county government, a national service platform, and an international commercial centre.
This distinction is structural, not sentimental. A significant share of national productivity is generated within Nairobi’s metropolitan ecosystem.
The country’s most active workforce lives, commutes, builds enterprises, and sustains consumption here.
Financial services, corporate headquarters, logistics networks, and national institutions are concentrated in this urban space.
In practical fiscal terms, Nairobi is central to Kenya’s economic activity. A substantial portion of national tax revenue is linked to activity headquartered in the capital: corporate income taxes, Pay As You Earn (PAYE), Value Added Tax from high-volume commerce, and financial-sector flows.
Even where production occurs elsewhere, value is often booked, taxed, and regulated from Nairobi-based offices.
Yet Nairobi is financed through the same revenue-sharing framework designed for counties whose obligations are primarily local.
The Constitution recognises that counties differ in character and responsibility. Article 174 defines devolution as a vehicle for equitable development and responsive governance.
Equity, however, does not necessarily mean uniform treatment. Treating structurally different units identically may not always produce fair outcomes.
Articles 202 and 203 require revenue allocation to consider fiscal capacity, developmental needs, and the functions assigned to each level of government.
Nairobi’s functions extend beyond those of a typical county. Its roads serve national institutions. Its emergency services protect diplomatic and state installations.
Its urban management supports the daily operations of the Executive, Parliament, and the Judiciary. Its infrastructure accommodates millions who work in the city but reside in neighbouring counties.
Under the Fourth Schedule, counties are responsible for urban planning, transport, trade development, and public works.
In Nairobi, these responsibilities have implications that extend beyond county boundaries and directly affect national operations.
Article 187 provides for the transfer or shared execution of functions between levels of government where efficiency or national interest requires cooperation.
Intergovernmental collaboration involving Nairobi should therefore be viewed as a constitutional mechanism — not discretionary generosity or evidence of institutional weakness.
There have also been public discussions regarding outstanding financial obligations owed by national government entities to the Nairobi County Government, including land rates, rent, parking fees, and other statutory charges.
Clarifying and reconciling such obligations through transparent intergovernmental processes would strengthen fiscal accountability and trust between the two levels of government.
Against this legal and economic background, the Sh80 billion collaboration framework can be interpreted as part of a broader effort to align financing with Nairobi’s unique role.
A more sustainable approach would involve developing a coherent capital-city financing framework that aligns planning authority, institutional responsibility, and fiscal support with Nairobi’s dual identity as both a county and the seat of the national government.
When the nation invests in its capital, it is strengthening the platform upon which the state operates.
A transparent and structured approach to intergovernmental financing would move the conversation beyond episodic agreements toward long-term clarity and constitutional alignment.
Source: The Star
