Court rules governors accountable for county procurement
The ruling closes avenues for governors to distance themselves from questionable procurement dealings and strengthens oversight, affirming the role of senators in scrutinising county finances.
The High Court has made it clear that governors bear full responsibility for all procurement activities in their counties and must ensure strict compliance with the law.
Delivering the ruling, justices Jacqueline Kamau, William Musyoka, and Alice Bett emphasised that governors oversee County Executive Committee members responsible for finance, making them ultimately accountable for county purchases under the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal (PPAD) Act.
More To Read
- 16 counties on the spot for failing to pay staff despite receiving full Treasury funds
- UHC row escalates as governors accuse Ministry of Health of undermining devolution
- Bill proposes 10-year audits to hold governors accountable after leaving office
- CoG raises concerns over UHC staff integration into county payrolls
- 11 counties under fire over Sh3 billion spent on unfinished county assembly chambers
- MPs reject Treasury circular on mandatory e-GPS use
The court also reinforced the right of senators to access county information, stating that county governments are legally required to provide such details promptly and free of charge, as outlined in the Access to Information Act.
“The answer to the question as to whether the first respondent (Otuoma) was primarily responsible for ensuring that the county executive complied with the PPAD Act was in the affirmative,” the judges said.
“In his capacity as the county governor of Busia, the first respondent was responsible for ensuring that county financial resources were managed effectively and efficiently.”
The case followed a petition filed in April 2024 by Busia Senator Okiya Omtatah against Governor Paul Otuoma, focusing on spending related to the Busia Trailer Park at Mundika and the distribution of new market stalls.
The senator requested documents on tendering, procurement, demolition of old stalls, and designs for new ones, arguing that transparency was essential for public accountability.
Governor Otuoma had contended that access to some records could be obtained through the Senate Public Accounts Committee and that certain documents were exempt under the PPAD Act and the Access to Information Act.
The judges rejected this position, stressing that all citizens have the right to information from public offices, except in narrowly defined circumstances such as national security, judicial independence, personal safety, or sensitive commercial data.
“The information, as sought by the petitioner, was for the benefit and protection of the public,” the court noted.
The bench further highlighted that the intended purpose for requesting information should not affect its release.
“The information sought ought to have been made available to him. The issue of the purpose for which he was seeking the information would be neither here nor there,” they said.
The ruling closes avenues for governors to distance themselves from questionable procurement dealings and strengthens oversight, affirming the role of senators in scrutinising county finances.
The court also stated that governors serve as the official “access to information officers” of their counties.
“By virtue of being chief executive officers under Article 179(4) of the Constitution, governors have additional functions under the Access to Information Act, which they may delegate to another officer in the county,” the judges added.
Top Stories Today
