Interior Cabinet Secretary Kithure Kindiki openly challenged Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s stance on the contentious one man, one shilling revenue-sharing formula. The debate, which has also seen input from Azimio leader Raila Odinga, has garnered significant public and political attention.
Taking to social media on Friday, CS Kindiki expressed strong reservations about the proposed revenue-sharing approach. He critiqued the formula for lacking a foundation in scientific or economic principles, branding it as an idea born out of casual political discourse rather than a rigorously thought-out policy.
“Proponents of the man-vote-shilling mantra neither understand its implications for Kenya’s future nor do they fathom its long-term impact on the parts of Kenya they purport will benefit from it,” Kindiki asserted in his post. He argued that the approach is unconstitutional and would ultimately prove detrimental to the nation’s future.
Kindiki emphasized the interconnectedness of Kenya’s regions, stating, “The destiny and success of Kenya is inextricably linked to the destiny and success of each part of Kenya. One Nation, one Flag, one People.” He cautioned that the one man, one shilling approach would falter when examined against the constitutional ideals and values upon which Kenya is built.
Just hours prior to Kindiki’s remarks, Deputy President Gachagua addressed criticisms directed at him for his position on the revenue-sharing formula. Speaking at a Women and Youth Empowerment Funds event in Samburu, Gachagua defended his right to free speech, a right enshrined in the constitution.
Gachagua expressed frustration at being labeled a tribalist, questioning why similar accusations were not leveled against Raila Odinga, who has previously taken similar stands. “The fact that I am the deputy president does not extinguish my right as a Kenyan and as per the constitution to have an opinion, but that opinion is not a command, it’s just an opinion,” he state
The one man, one shilling formula has been a polarizing topic, with advocates arguing it ensures equitable distribution of resources based on population, while opponents claim it oversimplifies and undermines the nuanced socio-economic landscapes of different regions.
The debate touches on fundamental issues of equity, representation, and the very nature of Kenya’s democracy. Kindiki’s opposition highlights concerns about long-term national unity and constitutional integrity, while Gachagua’s defense underscores the importance of free expression in a democratic society.
As the discourse continues, it remains to be seen how these differing perspectives will shape the future of revenue allocation in Kenya. What is clear, however, is that the issue has brought to the forefront critical conversations about justice, equity, and the foundational values of the Kenyan state.