Regional interests, politics of sharing ‘national cake’, hurt spirit of devolution
What you need to know:
- For more than a year after CRA finalised its revenue sharing recommendation and forwarded the same to the Senate, talk about the proposed revenue sharing formula went quiet.
- The delay underscores the politicisation of revenue allocation. But it has always been so since the advent of devolution.
Regional interests and the politicisation of revenue sharing has become the bane of devolution.
They are the cause of the current delay in finalising the framework proposed by the Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA).
Politicisation of the debate on horizontal revenue sharing was confirmed by the Supreme Court on May 15, when the apex court held that “the recommendations by the Commission on Revenue Allocation are not binding upon either the National Assembly or the Senate”, effectively domiciling the revenue sharing decision with politicians.
CRA commissioner Peter Gachuba says revenue sharing is a political process hence the perennial contention.
“The Constitution, [as] was recently affirmed by Supreme Court, wanted a political process. In other words, while CRA is a technical commission, it makes its recommendation to the Senate but that recommendation is not necessarily binding.
NEGOTIATED PROCESS
“The contention is thus because of the various positions taken. We have done a very thorough analytical work, interrogated all sorts of variables to ensure an equitable outcome, but at the end of the day, it is a negotiated process,” he said.
For more than a year after CRA finalised its revenue sharing recommendation and forwarded the same to the Senate, talk about the proposed revenue sharing formula went quiet. At the Council of Governors (CoG), the leadership avoided publicly commenting on the proposal for fear of offending their colleagues who held contrary opinions to CRA’s proposal.
The delay underscores the politicisation of revenue allocation. But it has always been so since the advent of devolution.
FORMULA CHALLENGED IN COURT
For instance, in 2016, Kiambu Senator Kimani Wamatangi challenged the current formula in court, alleging it was discriminatory but lost the case at the constitutional court.
The current formula has pitted the historically marginalised counties who insist on land remaining a key parameter, against mainly the Central Kenya counties, which point out that their counties have not been allocated their fair share of equitable revenue, especially given that they don’t get anything from the Equalization Fund, which primarily is meant for marginalised counties.
Mandera Governor Ali Roba, who also chairs the Frontier Counties Development Council (FCDC), says regional interests have often trumped over meaningful considerations.
“On the one hand you have counties that were marginalised for 50 years without any resources from the government before the advent of devolution and on the other you have those that received funds favourably since independence. For the Asals the only resources they receive are those from shareable revenue. These Asals have been very patient for over 50 years and have never complained about the resources going to other regions,” Mr Roba said.
CRA PARAMETERS
Constitutional lawyer Abdikadir Mohammed said the perennial controversy over the formula has to do with CRA.
“The parameters CRA has proposed like health are all based on population. Population on its own has been weighted at 18 per cent. While it is true that people matter, it is also important to take note of other unique factors as the ones faced by the historically marginalised counties.”
CRA has been criticised for failing to offer scientifically coherent arguments to support the recommendations. As a result, the debate has largely been about which counties are losing and which ones are gaining.
“It is very unfortunate we are talking about some counties losing and other gaining. That cannot and shouldn’t be the conversation. We should approach this matter on the basis of equity and fairness,” said Mr Gachuba.
