Treasury Cabinet Secretary John Mbadi has raised concerns about Kenya’s administrative structure, saying that the 47 counties have led to a bloated government and increased public spending. He believes that reducing the number of counties would help improve efficiency and ease the financial burden on the national budget.
His remarks come at a time when county governments are struggling with financial problems, including delays in receiving funds and difficulties in managing their budgets.
Many counties have been facing cash shortages due to late disbursements from the national government, causing disruptions in services and leaving workers unpaid for months.The issue of delayed funds has led to growing tensions between county governments and the Treasury.
Governors have repeatedly warned that if the situation continues, they may be forced to shut down county operations. Despite these concerns, the Treasury insists that it does not owe counties any outstanding funds, a claim that county leaders strongly dispute.
This standoff has made it difficult for counties to function properly, with hospitals running out of medicine, stalled development projects, and public servants struggling to make ends meet.
Mbadi’s proposal to reduce the number of counties is meant to address these challenges by making government operations more efficient and ensuring better use of resources.
He argues that the current county system has led to unnecessary administrative costs, with too many offices and officials drawing salaries from public funds.
By cutting down the number of counties, he believes the country could save money that could be redirected to important projects such as infrastructure, healthcare, and education.
However, implementing such a proposal would not be easy since it would require constitutional changes, which need approval from both parliament and the public.The debate over whether Kenya has too many counties is not new.
When devolution was introduced, it was meant to bring services closer to the people and give regions more control over their development.
However, critics argue that instead of improving service delivery, it has created multiple layers of government, leading to wasteful spending. Some counties have been accused of misusing public funds, with governors and county officials engaging in corruption instead of focusing on development.
If the number of counties were reduced, there is a possibility that resources could be managed better, but it could also mean that some regions lose their local governments, which could lead to resistance from affected communities.
The discussion about reducing counties is likely to spark strong reactions from both politicians and the public. Some leaders may oppose it because they fear losing political influence, while citizens in affected areas may worry about losing access to government services.
On the other hand, those who support the idea will argue that fewer counties would mean a leaner government, less wastage, and better service delivery.
The challenge will be finding a balance between reducing costs and ensuring that devolution remains effective in serving the people.
Add Comment