Thursday 27th August, 2026 11:43 AM|
As Kenya marks 16 years since the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution, devolution stands out as one of its most consequential achievements but also one of its most complicated experiments.
The Constitution fundamentally changed how Kenya is governed by shifting political, administrative and financial power from the national government to 47 counties. Since 2013, billions of shillings have flowed to counties, bringing government closer to citizens and supporting the expansion of local services.
Yet devolution presents a paradox: more resources have not always translated into stronger accountability, better financial management or more efficient delivery of services.
This tension captures the broader question at Katiba @16: how much of the constitution’s promise has been realised, and where has implementation fallen short?
Devolution: Bringing government closer to the people
Before 2010, Kenya operated under a highly centralised system in which decisions over development priorities, resources and administration were largely concentrated in Nairobi.
The 2010 Constitution sought to reverse that model.
Article 174 established devolution with objectives including promoting democratic and accountable exercise of power, giving communities greater control over their affairs, protecting marginalised communities and promoting social and economic development.
The establishment of 47 county governments was therefore more than an administrative change. It represented a redistribution of political and financial power.
For the 2026/27 financial year, counties were allocated Ksh428 billion as an equitable share, pushing cumulative equitable-share transfers since the beginning of devolution to about Ksh4.5 trillion.
The figures demonstrate the scale of Kenya’s investment in devolved government. But they also raise an important question: what has the country received in return for this massive investment?
Devolution’s paradox
The greatest weakness of devolution has arguably not been the idea itself, but the management of the resources accompanying it.
Counties have repeatedly faced criticism over pending bills, procurement practices, weak internal controls, stalled projects and questionable expenditure.
The persistence of pending bills is particularly revealing. A county can receive billions of shillings in public funds and still struggle to pay contractors, suppliers and employees on time.
This has created a troubling cycle in which county governments accumulate obligations while continuing to initiate new projects.
The consequences go beyond accounting.
When counties delay salaries, healthcare workers and other public servants are affected. When suppliers remain unpaid, local businesses experience cash-flow problems. When projects stall, citizens ultimately bear the cost through incomplete or abandoned infrastructure.
The problem is therefore not simply financial management. It is a governance issue.
The accountability gap
The Constitution created extensive accountability mechanisms around county governments.
County assemblies were given oversight responsibilities, while the Senate was mandated to protect the interests of counties and exercise oversight over nationally allocated revenue. The Auditor-General was also given constitutional authority to examine public expenditure.
The architecture is therefore extensive. The challenge is enforcement.
Political relationships can weaken oversight when county assemblies and executives become closely aligned. Audit queries may remain unresolved for years, while sanctions against officials accused of financial misconduct are often slow or inconclusive.
This creates a dangerous situation where constitutional accountability exists formally but remains weaker in practice.
Still, a balanced assessment must recognise that devolution has delivered meaningful gains.
Devolution’s gains
Healthcare is among the clearest examples.
Counties have invested in health facilities, personnel and equipment, bringing services closer to populations that previously travelled long distances to access government hospitals.
Devolution has also transformed political expectations. Citizens increasingly expect governors and county assemblies to account for local resources and respond directly to community needs.
County governments have become centres of employment, infrastructure development and local economic activity.
The impact is particularly visible in areas that historically felt neglected by central government.
However, the quality of these gains varies considerably between counties. Some have developed innovative programmes and improved service delivery, while others continue to struggle with weak administration, financial mismanagement and poor planning.
The lesson is that transferring resources is only one part of successful devolution. Institutions must also have the capacity and integrity to manage them.
The unfinished Senate question
The Senate remains a critical institution in Kenya’s devolved system.
Its constitutional responsibility includes protecting the interests of counties and exercising oversight over nationally allocated county revenue.
However, the relationship between the Senate, National Assembly and county governments has remained complicated.
Disagreements over revenue allocation have become an annual feature of Kenyan politics.
The question of how much money should go to counties is not simply a budgeting dispute. It goes to the heart of whether devolution can function as originally intended.
If counties are constitutionally responsible for particular functions but remain financially vulnerable to annual political negotiations at the national level, the promise of devolved government becomes complicated.
This remains one of the unfinished questions of Kenya’s constitutional experiment.
The Bill of Rights: A major constitutional gain
Beyond devolution, the 2010 Constitution fundamentally transformed the relationship between citizens and the State through an expansive Bill of Rights.
It recognises civil and political freedoms alongside economic and social rights, including healthcare, housing, food, water, social security and education.
The Constitution has strengthened citizens’ ability to challenge government decisions and demand services through courts and other institutions.
Public-interest litigation has become an important tool for enforcing constitutional rights.
But implementation remains uneven.
The existence of a constitutional right does not automatically guarantee its enjoyment. A citizen may have a constitutional right to healthcare while facing shortages of medicines and medical personnel. Another may have the right to housing while living in an informal settlement without adequate infrastructure.
The gap between constitutional promise and lived experience remains one of the biggest challenges of the past 16 years.
Judiciary and constitutional accountability
The judiciary has also emerged as a significant beneficiary of the 2010 constitutional order.
The Constitution strengthened judicial independence and gave courts broader powers to review government actions.
The Supreme Court’s role in presidential election disputes has been particularly significant, demonstrating that even the most powerful political office is subject to constitutional scrutiny.
Courts have also challenged actions by Parliament and the Executive where they have been found inconsistent with constitutional requirements.
This has strengthened the principle that constitutional supremacy is not merely theoretical.
However, judicial independence must continually be protected from political pressure, resource constraints and institutional interference.
Gender equality remains unfinished business
The Constitution made significant commitments to gender equality.
Article 27 provides for equality and freedom from discrimination, while Article 81 establishes the principle that no more than two-thirds of members of elective public bodies should be of the same gender.
Sixteen years later, Kenya has still not fully implemented that principle.
Women remain under-represented in Parliament and many other political decision-making spaces.
Once again, the constitutional commitment exists, but implementation and political will remain inadequate.
The corruption and integrity problem
Chapter Six of the Constitution was intended to transform leadership and integrity in Kenya.
Yet corruption remains one of the country’s most persistent governance challenges.
The Constitution established clear standards for public leadership, but enforcement remains inconsistent.
This reinforces a broader lesson from the past 16 years: constitutional provisions are only as strong as the institutions and political culture responsible for implementing them.
Kenya does not suffer from a shortage of constitutional principles. It suffers from gaps in enforcement.
16 years on: A Constitution that changed Kenya, but not enough
The 2010 Constitution has undeniably changed Kenya.
It decentralised power, strengthened the Bill of Rights, empowered courts, established stronger accountability institutions, expanded public participation and created a framework for more equitable distribution of resources.
Devolution alone has fundamentally altered the relationship between citizens and government.
But the Constitution has not eliminated corruption, political patronage, ethnic mobilisation, impunity, gender inequality or poor service delivery.
That should not necessarily be interpreted as proof that the Constitution failed.
Rather, it demonstrates the limits of constitutional engineering.
A constitution can establish institutions, define rights and distribute power. It cannot by itself create ethical leaders, competent administrators or citizens who consistently demand accountability.
As Kenya celebrates Katiba @16, the conversation should, therefore, move beyond whether the Constitution is good or bad.
The more important question is whether Kenya has built the political culture and institutional discipline necessary to make the Constitution work as intended.
Sixteen years after Kenyans adopted the 2010 Constitution, the country’s biggest challenge may not be writing a better constitutional document. It may be ensuring that the existing one is fully implemented, defended and respected.
