Section of senators say no to new county revenue share plan formulas
By Rawlings Otieno, February 7, 2025Some senators want a new formula for allocating revenue among counties reviewed, arguing that it is unfair.
In an apparent battle between ‘haves and have nots’, the lawmakers who want changes are from counties that will lose money if the formula is adopted.
The questioned the criteria the Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA) used to come up with the Fourth Basis Formula for Revenue Allocation.
In stormy deliberations yesterday at the ongoing Senate retreat in Naivasha, Nakuru County, senators stressed that they would not support any formula that takes away even one shilling from counties.
Responding to proposals presented by CRA chairperson Mary Wanyonyi, they argued that a new revenue-sharing formula was not unnecessary as the previous one had not been fully implemented.
Financial mismanagement
They also claimed the CRA had failed to address the issue of consistent financial mismanagement in some counties.
They said Wanyonyi’s proposal did not include mechanisms for ensuring prudent use of resources in counties with a history of financial inefficiencies. They proposed that allocations to such counties be reduced as a way of enhancing efficiency.
The Fourth Basis will determine how counties share revenue from the 2025-26 fiscal year to 2029-30.
In the proposed formula, 31 counties will get lower revenue shares, with the other 16 gaining, and this has triggered uproar.
The CRA proposes reducing allocations for Baringo, Bomet, Busia, Embu, Homa Bay, Kakamega, Nairobi, Narok, Nandi, Nakuru and others.
Senator Okong’o Omogeni (Nyamira) dismissed the formula as unfair, saying it would stifle counties and prevent them from performing their functions optimally.
“If you bring a formula which is going to reduce money from some counties and you deny them the ability to perform their functions, then that is not the formula that should get the support of the Senate,” said Omogeni.
He went on: “If you take the counties of Wajir, Mandera, Garissa and Marsabit, they are getting Sh7 billion more. From the total addition of Sh30 billion, Sh7 billion only benefits four counties. I think that is very unfair.”
Cows and pigs
A formula skewed to disadvantage some counties should not expect support, said James Murango (Kirinyaga).
“Those senators whose counties are losing money are opposing and those gaining revenue are supporting the formula. And it’s okay,” said Murango, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
Murango gave the analogy of a doctor who advised his patient to drink milk and eat eggs and pig sausage to get well.
“The cow gave the milk and went away. The hen laid the eggs and left. When it came to the pig, [it] refused because it had to die for the sausage to be [made].”
Edwin Sifuna (Nairobi) opposed any revenue reduction for any county, saying he would resist any such proposal.
“I will not appreciate any formula that will make Nairobi or any other county lose money,” he stressed.
Ali Roba (Mandera) emphasised the importance of allocating more money to counties based on the significance of the functions they perform.
Counties are responsible for essential devolved functions and should receive more funding not less, said Roba, who chairs the Finance and Budget Committee.
“Counties [perform] devolved functions that are very basic. There must be a marginal increase of resources channelled to counties,” he said.
Marginalised counties
However, William Kisang (Elgeyo Marakwet) urged his colleagues to back the proposed formula for the sake of marginalised counties.
“Those whose counties are gaining marginally in the formula should back the proposal. It’s regrettable that for the last 13 years, about 10 counties have been paying salaries only,” Kisang said.
“Such counties have no development. I thought this formula was coming in to help the 10 counties so that we can do something.”
Senate Majority Leader Aaron Cheruiyot (Kericho) instead urged the Finance and Budget Committee to critically examine the proposal and provide accurate data to facilitate an informed decision on the floor of the House.
He underscored the importance of evidence-based discussions, urging the committee to lead in scrutinising key areas of the proposal.
Senator Danson Mungatana (Tana River), while opposing the proposed formula, said the CRA should come up with one that cushions flood-prone counties like Tana River, Garissa, Wajir and Lamu.
“Almost 50 per cent of [Tana River] went underwater when we had the flooding. How can you say that emergency [situations] should not be considered because there is a fund established under the [Public Finance Management] Act?” posed Mungatana.
He explained that all the work done through the equitable share is swept away in one flooding season, leaving the county poorer.
Fair and equitable
Although each county has the right to a fair and equitable share of revenue, none should lose what it is already getting for another to be given more, said Senator Ledama Ole Kina (Narok).
“What is the best way to proceed if we do not get an additional allocation? I want Elgeyo Marakwet to get money, but I don’t want Narok to lose money as well,” he said.
Opposing the proposed formula, Agnes Kavindu (Machakos) said her county would lose more than Sh300 million.
“All counties need equitable share. No county should lose money.,” she said.
In her presentation, Wanyonyi said the CRA assigned population the largest weight (42 per cent), geographical size (nine per cent), and equal share (22 per cent), with the poverty index remaining at 14 per cent.