Ignore clamour for immediate devolution of road management

Kenya has achieved substantial advancements in expanding and enhancing its road infrastructure in the past 20 years. National agencies, including the Kenya National Highways Authority (KeNHA), Kenya Urban Roads Authority (Kura), and Kenya Rural Roads Authority (KeRRA), have been essential in developing the road network into a stronger system that now includes major highways, in rural and urban areas. These institutions have taken the lead in development efforts under the Ministry of Roads' while ensuring consistent oversight and technical expertise.

County governments serve as the fourth primary stakeholder in the road sector by managing their respective county roads. Political leaders and various stakeholders are now advocating for counties to assume more responsibility for road functions, including both urban and rural road management. The Constitution recognises devolution as an essential element, yet giving counties more responsibility within the road sector now presents significant risks. The rationale behind postponing this transfer stems from the practical challenges that counties need to address prior to assuming additional responsibilities.

The road agencies that operate under Kenya's national government benefit from well-established organisational systems. Qualified engineers as well as planners and procurement specialists staff these institutions. The operations of these agencies are governed by internationally recognised standards which are supported by comprehensive frameworks and functional boards together with explicit mandates. Their performance is imperfect, but they have managed to produce real outcomes despite facing multiple challenges such as political meddling and financial limitations.

Numerous county governments suffer from obvious operational shortcomings. A primary deficiency of these county governments resides in their insufficient human resources capacity. Qualified civil engineers and procurement experts are scarce in many counties while technical roles frequently get assigned through political favouritism instead of professional qualifications. 

The financial behaviour of counties shows troubling patterns of indiscipline. The allocated funds, which were supposed to construct roads, ended up paying staff salaries and administrative costs in several instances. These activities breach financial regulations and endanger essential infrastructure projects.

The absence of proper oversight creates an environment where localised corruption can flourish.

Counties frequently function without transparency even though national road agencies undergo parliamentary scrutiny and independent institutional oversight. County assemblies have repeatedly shown their inability to hold governors and executives responsible for their actions. Strong oversight mechanisms do not exist as procurement anomalies remain common across multiple sectors. The delegation of additional responsibilities to local authorities in high-budget sectors like road infrastructure without addressing the oversight gap will lead to disorder.

Tribal and favouritism biases often direct decision-making processes at county levels. Road development initiatives often turn into political tools that focus on local interests instead of addressing essential strategic development requirements. Infrastructure planning would split into fragmented sectors where road construction depends on political power rather than actual needs or potential economic benefits.

Beyond physical structures, roads serve as key tools to unite nations. Road transportation connects far-flung communities to marketplaces while linking rural regions with urban centres and facilitating regional commerce. The national planning process develops infrastructure links with future economic growth and national unity as key considerations.

Premature control by counties may result in dangerous fragmentation. Without regard to logical planning or economic needs any county ward or ethnic area could demand its own portion of resources. The situation risks creating inefficient duplication and resource conflicts between counties along shared roads. Roadways may transform into zones of contention among communities instead of serving as pathways for progress.

The national government faces financial difficulties as it struggles with road contractor bills that exceed Sh200 billion. The current backlog demonstrates the high financial costs required to operate within this sector. A central government that benefits from consolidated revenue streams and structured financing along with donor support is already challenged.

Counties that depend heavily on national transfers cannot realistically perform well under their weaker financial frameworks. Without economies of scale, costs will balloon. The procurement process will become more divided and will probably lead to higher expenses. Counties with bad payment histories will face contractor avoidance which will lead to slower development progress.

Kenya must steer clear of relying on devolution to solve all systemic problems. We need to reinforce current systems before transferring additional functions to county governments. The national government needs to focus on resolving outstanding bills while promoting transparency and expanding institutional strength.

Before the national government can allocate additional responsibilities to them counties need to prove their preparedness. Counties need to build up their technical workforce while enhancing their financial management systems and resolving existing challenges in health services, educational facilities, and local infrastructure development. Devolution should be earned, not handed out.