Ruto's roads levy remark sparks stormy devolution debate

Kakamega Governor Fernandes Barasa inspects road construction in Shirere ward. County governments and the National Assembly are fighting over control of the multi-billion-shilling Roads Maintenance Levy Fund. [File, Standard]

President William Ruto’s recent call to governors and MPs to “stop fighting over the roads levy money and give me the money to put to prudent use” has ignited a heated political and constitutional debate.

The remarks, made on Easter Sunday in Narok, have been widely interpreted—particularly by governors—as a direct affront to the devolved system of governance.

At the heart of the controversy is a prolonged tussle between county governments and the National Assembly over control of the multi-billion-shilling Roads Maintenance Levy Fund (RMLF).

This dispute centres on the constitutional interpretation of whose role it is to manage the billions collected from motorists at the fuel pump—a standoff further complicated by an active court case.

The RMLF, collected at a rate of Sh25 per litre of petrol and diesel by the Kenya Roads Board (KRB), is intended for the maintenance and rehabilitation of the country’s road network. Traditionally, the funds have been allocated to national agencies—the Kenya National Highways Authority (KeNHA), Kenya Urban Roads Authority (KURA), and Kenya Rural Roads Authority (KeRRA).

However, following devolution, county governments argue they are responsible for maintaining the majority of roads and should, therefore, have direct control over a significant portion of the fund.

Members of the National Assembly have expressed frustration over the freezing of funds, arguing it has stalled essential road maintenance projects in their constituencies.

Elephant in the room

Funyula MP Wilberforce Oundo laid the blame on the ongoing court case filed by the Council of Governors (CoG), insisting that any progress hinges on the withdrawal of the case.

Oundo urged the Senate to facilitate dialogue to determine counties’ rightful share of the fund.

“The Senate should engage the Council of Governors to address the elephant in the room: the actual figures on the revenue share due to counties and the ongoing court case regarding roads levy,” he said.

However, this suggestion has met resistance in Parliament. Senators serving on a joint committee addressing the RMLF impasse have rejected calls from the National Assembly to pressurise governors to drop the case.

Senator Ali Roba, the committee’s co-chair, said Senators would not coerce governors into withdrawing the case, citing the political realities and the distinct roles of the two levels of government.

“It is unrealistic to expect Senators to engage governors on the Roads Maintenance Levy Fund. As a mediation committee, our focus is on finding a reasonable solution. Our role is to safeguard devolution,” said Roba.

Meanwhile, in the National Assembly, some MPs are pushing for practical solutions to resolve the stalemate.

Kiharu MP Ndindi Nyoro urged his colleagues to address the root causes of the impasse rather than deflect responsibility.

“We must not avoid the underlying issues, as that would be a dereliction of duty. We must not take the easy route. Unlocking the funds will require both political and technical solutions,” he said.

Governors view the situation as a calculated move by the national government to claw back functions constitutionally assigned to counties.

Kakamega Governor Fernandes Barasa supported Kisumu Governor Anyang’ Nyong’o’s call for MPs to pass legislation enabling counties to manage the RMLF directly.

Barasa argued that counties control of the funds would result in more efficient and transparent infrastructure development, as counties better understand local priorities.

“Counties are best placed to identify, plan and execute road projects that have the greatest impact on the people,” Governor Barasa said.

Governors interpreted the President’s comments as a direct threat to devolution.

Last week, Governor Nyong’o launched a scathing attack on President Ruto’s administration, accusing it of attempting to reverse the gains of devolution.

He argued that agencies such as KURA and KeRRA are unnecessary.

“KURA and KeRRA need not exist if the national government is serious about fully implementing devolution,” Nyong’o said.

He alleged that the government’s actions reflect a broader agenda.

“The truth is that the Ruto regime has decided to go back to the Nyayo-era model of centralised control. The 2010 Constitution is a hindrance to its primitive accumulation schemes,” he claimed.

This conflict over the Sh10.8 billion RMLF is more than a fiscal dispute—it is a litmus test for the future of devolution. While MPs decry the freezing of funds and the impact on their constituencies, governors accuse the national government of undermining devolution.

Public finance

Mumias East MP Peter Salasya accused governors of posturing.

“If you joke with us (MPs), we will go back to Parliament, legislate, and send all of you home!” Salasya said.

The Senate continues to walk a tightrope, balancing political interests with constitutional obligations.

Cyril Wayong’o, a constitutional lawyer based in Bungoma, says the conflict underscores the challenge of aligning older legal frameworks with Kenya’s devolved system.

“The 2010 Constitution fundamentally restructured Kenya’s governance model, clearly assigning distinct responsibilities to both levels of government,” he said.

Wayong’o emphasised that Article 201 of the Constitution lays out principles of public finance, including openness, accountability, prudent use of public resources, and equitable distribution.

“Any legal framework governing public funds like the RMLF must uphold these principles, ensuring that monies earmarked for devolved functions are accessible and managed by county governments,” he said.

Political scientist Prof Adams Oloo sees the President’s remarks as emblematic of a broader power struggle over control of resources and the potential erosion of devolution.

“The push to centralise the RMLF raises legitimate concerns about the administration’s commitment to devolution,” Oloo said.

He stressed that financial autonomy is the lifeblood of devolution, enabling counties to provide services tailored to local needs.

“When the national government retains control over funds meant for devolved functions, it weakens counties and undermines devolution,” he added.

Economists, meanwhile, approach the debate from the perspective of efficiency and accountability.

Dr Joy Mboya, a public finance expert, acknowledges concerns over potential mismanagement at the county level but warns against recentralising control.

“Counties are closer to the people and are, arguably, better placed to determine local road needs,” she said.

Dr Mboya recommended strengthening financial management and oversight mechanisms at the county level instead of centralising funds.

The impact of the standoff is already visible on the ground. Several counties report stalled or abandoned road projects due to uncertainty surrounding the release of the funds.

Governors say they are unable to proceed with planned works, leaving many rural and urban roads in disrepair, disrupting transport and economic activity.

Financial impropriety

Since the 2010 Constitution came into force, the RMLF has been a point of tension between national and county governments. Although some funds have been allocated to counties, disagreements over the amount and disbursement mechanisms have persisted.

The current court case filed by the CoG is the culmination of years of advocacy for a clear, constitutionally-aligned framework for the fund’s management.

MPs argue that their oversight role necessitates control over national resources, including the RMLF, to ensure accountability. They cite examples of alleged financial impropriety in counties as justification.

Governors, however, argue that withholding the RMLF undermines their constitutional mandate and hampers service delivery. They point to county assemblies and national audit institutions as sufficient accountability mechanisms.

So, who is right?

Most constitutional experts agree that the spirit of the 2010 Constitution favours the devolution of functions and funds to the level of government best placed to perform them. The Fourth Schedule expressly assigns the responsibility for county roads to county governments.

By that interpretation, a portion of the RMLF earmarked for county roads should be managed by county governments. The current system, which channels these funds through national agencies, appears to contradict that principle.