Governors and Senate standoff is undermining accountability

Audio By Vocalize

In the last few months, the Council of Governors (CoG) and the Senate have been locked in a public standoff over governors’ appearances before Senate committees to answer accountability questions.

Speaking at the Fifth Session Assessment and Planning Retreat in Naivasha, Senate Speaker Amason Kingi addressed the impasse, observing that: “It is a contradiction to seek Senate support for enhanced revenue while resisting oversight on how those funds are spent. Accountability is not optional; it is a constitutional requirement.”

The Senate represents the people. Under Article 96(3) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, it is mandated to protect the interests of counties on behalf of Kenyans, not only by advocating for greater resource allocation but also by ensuring that those resources are deployed for the benefit of citizens.

The CoG’s resolution to boycott appearances before the Senate’s County Public Accounts Committee signals a troubling trend: An attempt to evade constitutionally mandated accountability. Articles 96 and 125 of the Constitution empower the Senate to exercise oversight over national revenue allocated to county governments and to summon any person to appear before it.

These provisions are not discretionary courtesies extended to governors; they are binding constitutional obligations. Any attempt to boycott such processes undermines the rule of law and the constitutional principle that all State officers must account for the lawful and prudent use of public resources.

This, however, does not mean that allegations of misconduct against some members of the committee should be ignored. To me, they must be investigated independently, but they cannot be used as justification to avoid oversight.

A question many Kenyans are asking is whether governors can simply decide not to appear before Senate committees. The answer is no. Governors are duty-bound to appear. This question was effectively settled by the Court of Appeal in 2019 following a challenge by the Council of Governors.

It is important to understand the historical context of the recurring dispute. In February 2014, 15 governors were summoned by the Senate Committee on Finance, Commerce, and Economic Affairs to respond to queries arising from a report by the Office of the Auditor-General for the financial year ending 2012/2013. Several governors honoured the summons and responded to questions on the financial operations of their counties and the defunct local authorities. However, four governors declined to appear.

The matter proceeded to court in International Legal Consultancy Group vs The Senate and the Clerk of the Senate, filed as High Court Petition No. 8 of 2014. In its judgment on April 16, 2014, a three-judge bench held that the Senate was acting within its constitutional mandate in summoning both governors and county executive members for finance. Fresh summonses were subsequently issued. Four governors, Isaac Ruto, William Kabogo, Mwangi wa Iria, and Jack Ranguma, again refused to attend.

In response, the Senate passed a resolution recommending that, in accordance with Section 96 of the Public Finance Management Act 2012, the Treasury halt transfers to the affected county governments. It also urged the Office of the Controller of Budget to decline approval of public fund withdrawals by those counties.

The governors challenged the Senate’s actions in court once again. The High Court reaffirmed that the Senate had the constitutional authority to summon governors to answer audit queries relating to national revenue allocated to counties. An appeal by the CoG was ultimately dismissed by the Court of Appeal in 2019, settling the matter.

What is unfolding today is not a legal dispute but a political one. In truth, the resistance appears less about constitutional principle and more about avoiding the embarrassment that sometimes accompanies scrutiny during committee hearings. Yet several governors have appeared before the Senate and successfully defended their counties’ financial records. This suggests that the Senate itself is not the problem.

Governors should not fear the Senate; they should fear the judgment of the Kenyan people.

Elected by citizens in their counties, governors owe the electorate a fiduciary duty to prudently manage public resources and to account for every shilling received, whether from county revenue or national government allocations. Ultimately, the hour of reckoning will come.

Those seeking re-election will have to face voters without the protective umbrella of the CoG. Others, sooner or later, may be called to answer for financial impropriety committed during their tenure. Criminal offences do not simply expire with political careers.

According to the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), 11 former and current governors, together with several senior officials who served under them, are under investigation. A further 12 former and serving governors are already before the courts facing charges that include abuse of office, conflict of interest, and unlawful acquisition of public property. Two have already been convicted and jailed.

Public office, including that of governor, is not a personal privilege but a public trust. Article 73 of the Constitution makes this explicit: Authority assigned to State officers must be exercised in a manner consistent with the Constitution, demonstrating respect for the people and bringing honour to the nation and dignity to the office.

Oversight is therefore not an inconvenience. It is the very essence of democratic accountability.