A potential standoff looms between senators, governors, and Members of County Assemblies (MCAs) over a contentious proposal to abolish county bursary funds. This move, recommended by the Senate County Public Investments and Special Funds Committee, has ignited heated debate, with county leaders defending the bursaries as crucial support for needy students.
The committee, chaired by Vihiga Senator Godfrey Osotsi, argues that county bursary funds are not constitutionally mandated and divert resources from devolved functions. In its report on the Auditor General’s findings, the panel stated, “Governors should ensure that all county-established bursary funds are abolished.”
Constitutional Misalignment
The Fourth Schedule of the Kenyan Constitution delineates the responsibilities of county and national governments. While counties are tasked with managing pre-primary education, polytechnics, childcare facilities, and home craft centers, the national government oversees primary, secondary, tertiary, and university education.
The report highlighted that counties allocate funds for bursaries across all educational levels, contradicting their constitutional mandate. The committee emphasized, “Resources currently allocated to bursaries should be redirected towards essential county responsibilities as outlined in the constitution.”
Allegations of Mismanagement
The senators pointed to numerous irregularities in the management of county bursary funds. In many instances, multiple bursaries were awarded to the same students from different wards within the same county, depriving other deserving students of financial aid. Additionally, some students benefited from both county bursary funds and external donor programs, exacerbating inequities.
To address these concerns, the committee recommended that county bursary allocations operate under a centralized system to ensure equitable distribution. However, even this solution has drawn criticism for potentially stifling local ward-level decision-making.
Legal Gaps and Oversight
The report also criticized counties for operating bursary funds without proper legal frameworks. In some cases, regulations were formulated under the national Public Finance Management (PFM) Act, which vests the authority to make such regulations in the Cabinet Secretary for Finance. The senators argued that county-specific legislation should govern these funds to ensure alignment with devolved governance structures.
“Reliance on the national law to develop county-specific regulations highlights the inadequacy of the offices of the county attorney in providing necessary legal and technical advice,” the report stated.
To resolve this, the senators called for the enactment of county-specific laws to regulate bursary funds and enhance the capacity of county attorneys through professional development programs.
Political and Social Backlash
Governors and MCAs have opposed the recommendation, arguing that county bursary funds are lifelines for disadvantaged students who are often overlooked by national bursary programs. Many see these funds as a tangible way to address local education disparities.
Critics, however, have labeled the funds as political tools used by governors and MCAs to curry favor with constituents. With some counties managing separate ward-level and executive-controlled bursary programs, questions about transparency and accountability persist.
Potential Fallout
The recommendation to abolish county bursaries has the potential to escalate into a significant political clash. Governors and MCAs are unlikely to relinquish a tool that bolsters their grassroots influence. On the other hand, senators insist that county resources must align with their constitutional mandate.
If implemented, the proposal could reshape how educational support is distributed, pushing more responsibility onto the national government while refocusing county resources on constitutionally mandated functions. However, this transition would require careful planning to avoid leaving vulnerable students without support.
As the debate unfolds, it underscores the complexities of Kenya’s devolved governance system, where competing priorities and overlapping responsibilities often lead to conflict. The outcome of this standoff will likely set a precedent for how counties navigate their roles within the constitutional framework.
