The intergovernmental cooperation agreement between the National Government and Nairobi County has brought about diverse reactions. In this case, Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna and Embakasi East MP Babu Owino have rejected the deal and called it an unconstitutional takeover of devolved functions.
The two members of parliament blamed Johnson Sakaja for signing what they considered a “continuation of the NMS defunct model (NMS), ” and warned that it is a danger to devolution as well as a disadvantage to oversight by the County Assembly, the Senate and the Office of the Auditor, General.
“Even before the ink dried up, serious constitutional issues had come up, ” the leaders stated, mentioning that they believe the signing of the agreement has complicated the accountability structures and invites a return of big pending bills, weak audits as well as corruption.
Sifuna and Owino questioned the legality of the 14 days set aside for public participation in the agreement, they argued that it was not enough time for the residents of Nairobi to thoroughly examine and give their opinion on the matter. They referred to the process as a violation of the constitutional requirement for public participation.
The lawmakers were also worried about the composition of the suggested steering committee and felt that it was biased towards one side.
They pointed out that the agreement was similar to the NMS, style system which had been the subject of controversy previously as it transferred some key county functions to the national government thus sparking debates over the erosion of devolution.
Instead, Sifuna and Owino suggested that the National Government should pay off the debts that its agencies owe to Nairobi County, which they estimate to be over Ksh100 billion. They stated that if the arrears were paid, the County Assembly would have the funds that it could use to finance priority county projects and clear up the backlog of bills without handing over the control of the devolved functions.
The cooperation agreement has been a topic of heated debate in political and governance circles, the proponents claiming that it would speed up the development of the capital, while the opponents are of the view that it might jeopardize the constitutional safeguards and the frameworks for accountability.