The issue of failed service delivery within Nairobi’s County Government has become an ongoing problem, largely due to inefficiencies, poor management strategies, and a lack of proper governance. In many instances, corruption and mismanagement have compounded the situation, leading to the national government taking advantage of these weaknesses to push for the transfer of powers. However, there are significant constitutional issues with these actions, and it's crucial to examine the legal and governance framework surrounding the transfer of powers between national and county governments.

Legal Issues with Power Transfers

Article 187 of the Constitution outlines the process by which a function or power can be transferred between levels of government. However, it is essential to note that the Constitution specifically refers to the transfer of functions or powers between levels of government, and not between different counties. The constitutional framers envisioned a transfer process that occurs between the national government and county governments, not between counties themselves. Similarly, Article 189 stresses cooperation between governments at different levels, but it does not allow for the transfer of powers solely from one county to the national government.

This raises the issue of whether the national government’s frequent attempts to absorb Nairobi’s powers are legally justified. If national government interventions are truly necessary, they should apply to all counties that face similar challenges, not just Nairobi. The continued focus on Nairobi without addressing the broader systemic issues across the country suggests a lack of a comprehensive solution to governance problems at the county level.

Why Nairobi?

The question often arises: why is it always Nairobi that faces the brunt of intervention? While it is true that Nairobi is a critical hub for Kenya's economy and governance, the failure of other counties to develop effective governance structures should also be a point of concern. If the national government’s interest in Nairobi is genuinely out of concern for better governance, why aren't similar interventions happening in other counties with even worse governance structures? The selective focus on Nairobi suggests that the national government’s intentions may not always be driven by a genuine desire to address failures in governance, but rather by strategic, political, or economic motives.

Why National Government is not a solution

It is essential to acknowledge that the national government itself is not a perfect solution. There have been numerous cases of corruption within national government institutions, and several major initiatives have failed to meet their objectives. For instance, the implementation of universal healthcare coverage under the SHA has faced setbacks, and the government has struggled to provide free education despite it being enshrined in the Constitution. Furthermore, development projects often seem spontaneous and lack a clear, overarching national framework. Given these issues, it is questionable whether transferring more powers to the national government will improve governance at the county level.

Proposed Solutions for Nairobi’s Governance Crisis

To address the dysfunctionality within Nairobi’s County Government, I propose two key solutions:

1.      Adherence to the County Governments Act (2012): Nairobi’s County Government, along with other counties, must adhere to the legal frameworks established under the County Governments Act and the County Integrated Development Plans (CIDP). According to Section 108, CIDPs outline 10-year, programme-based plans for each sector in the county, and these plans serve as the basis for budgeting. By following the CIDP and properly allocating resources to each sector (e.g., healthcare, transport, waste management, and education), Nairobi could implement a more effective and structured governance approach. This would allow for accountability and provide a roadmap for sustainable development, addressing the current governance deficits.

2.      Creating an Alternative City: Nairobi's overwhelming concentration of power, resources, and infrastructure has led to overcrowding and an unsustainable strain on its systems. To address this, Kenya should consider the creation of new cities, taking a cue from countries like Egypt, which has undertaken the construction of new cities to alleviate pressure on Cairo. Cities like the New Administrative Capital, New Alamein, and New Mansoura have been established to redistribute key functions and reduce the overburdening of the capital. Kenya should explore the possibility of creating a new international city that can complement Nairobi and shift some functions and institutions away from the capital. This would help reduce congestion, distribute resources more evenly across the country, and create a new hub for economic, administrative, and tourism activities.

Conclusion

The persistent dysfunction within Nairobi’s County Government cannot be solved by simply transferring powers to the national government, especially when the national government faces its own systemic issues. Instead, a more holistic approach that involves adhering to existing governance frameworks and considering the creation of alternative cities for better resource distribution is needed. Only through these measures can Nairobi, and indeed the entire country, achieve a more sustainable and effective system of governance.