Governor Kenneth Lusaka’s priorities are upside down

By Stephen Mutoro

Kenya: Bungoma Governor Kenneth Lusaka’s piece entitled Don’t trivialise governors’ role in devolution as contained in The Standard of June 26 made good reading.

 It naturally merits an informed response on various grounds: first that the piece was overly defensive; second, it points an accusing finger at the public. As Chairman of the Decentralisation and Governance Non-State Actors Network (Degonsa), I hold first hand experience on the subject matter in more than 35 of the 47 counties.

The article also merits a response because on March 3, I travelled hundreds of kilometres to Tongaren DEB Primary School where I voted for Mr Lusaka, among other leaders. Indeed I remain optimistic that he will deliver, same to his 46 colleagues.

He might have been writing on behalf of other Governors by virtue of his privileged position as the Secretary to the Governor’s Summit but as they say – charity begins at home.

Generally, the piece justifies both the approach and the issues most governors have been clamouring for. On the reverse side, the article condemns the unfavourable public opinion on devolution generally and governors’ personal welfare issues – ranging from higher perks, salaries, special titles, diplomatic passports among others.

Legally, the governors are well within the provisions of Article 6(2) of the Constitution of Kenya (CoK2010) to have a semblance of benefits accorded to the national President. Morally and economically, that would be difficult to justify leave alone the more difficult part of financing them.

Most of the Counties appear to imagine it will be smooth sailing to steeply raise taxation levels. In the article, Mr Lusaka argues that “… the people at the centre of devolution have beencriticized, albeit undeservedly”.

He goes on to cite the issueof flying flags as well as demand for higher pay. The article denies that governors’ wanted more pay yet they were seeking better pay only for the County Assembly members. But that is untrue.

The real people at the real centre of devolution are the likes of “Wanjiku” who expect reliable, high quality and affordable public service delivery. Framers of the Constitution were clear under Article 174(c) as “to give powers of self-governance to the people and enhance the participation of the people in the exercise of the powers of the Sate and in making decisions affecting them”

 From the foregoing, therefore, anyone expecting that the public to neither praise or criticize governors and other County leadership would be fatally wrong. Such a personwill also be guilty of failing the high thresholds of national values underArticle 10 of the CoK2010 which include public participation.

 It is also untrue to say that governors’ did not want better pay from public coffers – when most of them including the Summit Chairman Mr Isaac Rutto have repeatedly been asking for more staff and other benefits – that means the same.

 But that is beside the point. Mr Lusaka goes on to say that “In Bungoma County, out of a possible road network of 800 km, only 132km is under tarmac. We must equip the Executive with appropriate means of travel and not consider four-wheel drives a luxury”.

That is where logic fails. If the roads are that bad, will the Counties be justified in going for unaffordable aeroplanes instead? No. Instead of going for the four-wheel guzzlers, the governor would be best advised to consider the better option of putting the major roads to murram status.

That way, the recommended 1800 CCcapacity vehicles would move more easily. It will also enhance the local economy vide lower transport costs.

The author further notes that “I, for instance, certainly know the challenges facing the people of Bungoma fromLufwindiri to Chepkitale”. Why would he and his ExecutiveCommittee invest in expensive transport when the core issue is not for his team to re-invent the County challenges? Mr Lusaka rightly puts it that “the major criticism is on budget allocation.”

That is for a fact. In a well-attended forum at the Westgate Hotel on June 14, 2013 a keyevent skipped by both the Governor and his deputy without apologies, participants under the auspices of Bungoma Stakeholders Forum (BSF) flatly rejected the County Budget.

Highlights of the Sh11,367,951,527 Bungoma County budget has a revenue expectation of Sh7,098,182,314 inclusive of Treasury allocation of Sh5,900,000,000. The said budget is unclear on what it means by “local revenues” amounting to Sh496,453,805 and “borrowings” of Sh701,728,509.

The National Government is not offering guarantees to County Government borrowings for the first 12 months.

Assuming that the projected Sh7.1B can be raised, a deep deficit of Sh4,269,369,357 is difficult to finance. On the expenditure, the lion’s share goes to “capital expenditure” of Sh4,618,845,735 (inclusive of private residence of Governor/Deputy at a whopping Sh120M; 28 No. motor-vehicles at Sh112M; Refurbishment of buildings at Sh100M; Construction of office block at Sh30M and a generator (without specs) for Sh6M. A paltry allocation for infrastructure

Competition within Counties is healthy. It therefore unjustifiable for Mr Lusaka to observe that “it is premature to compare Counties in terms of is working and who is not. Thepriorities of the Counties differ from Nairobi, to Machakos and Turkana”. Clearly, these are some of the issues that governors must agree to be (positively) criticized upon.

 Being averse to such criticism without attaining the right quality of public services envisaged from public entities, under Article 46, on consumer rights, is unacceptable.

 Bottom line, only the ordinary Kenyans at the grassroots will make devolution work for Kenya. Several Counties such as Machakos and Nairobi are on the right path.

The writer is Cofek Secretary General