The Kenyan government needs to postpone full devolution of road management to maintain stability while national agencies continue infrastructure development.
Kenya has expanded and enhanced its road infrastructure over the past 20 years.
State agencies, including the Kenya National Highways Authority, Kenya Urban Roads Authority, and Kenya Rural Roads Authority, have been essential in developing the road network into a stronger system that now includes major highways and rural and urban roads.
These institutions have led development efforts under the Roads ministry while ensuring consistent oversight and expertise.
Counties serve as the fourth primary stakeholder in the road sector by managing their roads. Political leaders and various stakeholders are pushing counties to assume more responsibility for road functions, including urban and rural road management.
The Constitution recognises devolution as an essential element yet giving counties more responsibility in the road sector now presents significant risks. The rationale behind postponing this transfer stems from the practical challenges counties should address before assuming additional responsibilities. The national institutions function effectively but counties remain unprepared.
The road agencies under the national government benefit from well-established systems. Qualified engineers, planners and procurement specialists staff these institutions.
Internationally recognised standards govern these agencies. Their performance is imperfect but they have produced real outcomes despite multiple challenges such as political meddling and financial limitations.
Numerous counties suffer from obvious operational shortcomings. A primary deficiency of these counties resides in their insufficient human resources capacity. Qualified civil engineers and procurement experts are scarce in many counties.
Technical roles are frequently assigned through political favouritism instead of professional qualifications. The health sector displays recurrent mismanagement and inefficiency. This has resulted in underfunding and poor service delivery, along with systemic labour unrest.
The financial behaviour of counties shows troubling patterns of indiscipline. The funds to construct roads ended up paying staff salaries and administrative costs in several instances.
The absence of proper oversight creates an environment where localised corruption can flourish.
Counties frequently function without transparency even though national road agencies undergo parliamentary scrutiny and independent institutional oversight. County assemblies have repeatedly shown their inability to hold governors and executives responsible for their actions.
Road management should stay under national control until county governments demonstrate successful management of their current responsibilities.
We should develop the necessary capabilities while repairing current problems before attempting to move ahead too quickly. Devolution requires careful planning to avoid descending into disorder.
Strong oversight mechanisms do not exist as procurement anomalies remain common across multiple sectors. The delegation of additional responsibilities to local authorities in high-budget sectors like road infrastructure without addressing the oversight gap will lead to disorder.
Tribal and favoritism biases often direct decision-making processes at county levels. Road development initiatives often turn into political tools that focus on local interests instead of addressing essential strategic development requirements.
Infrastructure planning would split into fragmented sectors where road construction depends on political power rather than actual needs or potential economic benefits.
Fragmentation andloss of national unity.
Beyond physical structures roads serve as key tools to unite nations. Road transportation connects far-flung communities to marketplaces while linking rural regions with urban centers and facilitating regional commerce.
The national planning process develops infrastructure links with future economic growth and national unity as key considerations.
Premature control by counties may result in dangerous fragmentation. Without regard to logical planning or economic needs any county ward or ethnic area could demand its own portion of resources.
The situation risks creating inefficient duplication and resource conflicts between counties along shared roads. Roadways may transform into zones of contention among communities instead of serving as pathways for progress.
Financial realities cannot be ignored.
The national government faces financial difficulties as it struggles with road contractor bills that exceed KSh 200 billion. The current backlog demonstrates the high financial costs required to operate within this sector.
A central government that benefits from consolidated revenue streams and structured financing along with donor support manages these challenges.
Counties that depend heavily on national transfers cannot realistically perform well under their weaker financial frameworks. Without economies of scale, costs will balloon.
The procurement process will become more divided and will probably lead to higher expenses. Counties with bad payment histories will face contractor avoidance which will lead to slower development progress.
Devolution should be incremental, not desperate.
Kenya must steer clear of relying on devolution to solve all systemic problems. We need to reinforce current systems before transferring additional functions to county governments.
The national government needs to focus on resolving outstanding bills while promoting transparency and expanding institutional strength.
Before the national government can allocate additional responsibilities to them counties need to prove their preparedness. Counties need to build up their technical workforce while enhancing their financial management systems and resolving existing challenges in health services, educational facilities, and local infrastructure development. Devolution should be earned, not handed out.
Not yet for the counties.
The proposal for counties to take on more road management responsibilities comes from good intentions but lacks proper timing. The potential for inefficiency alongside corruption and ethnic bias and fragmentation makes devolution too risky. Kenya's substantial progress on its infrastructure path should not be jeopardized by political convenience.
