Reports from North Eastern Kenya have sparked nationwide debate after it emerged that a county assembly from the region has been conducting its official sittings in Nairobi instead of within its home county.
According to available information, the assembly relocated its meetings to the capital citing logistical, security, and infrastructural challenges back home. Officials argue that the move ensures continuity of legislative business without interruptions.
However, the decision has drawn criticism from residents, governance experts, and civil society groups. Critics argue that a county assembly is meant to sit within its jurisdiction to remain accessible to the people it represents.
Holding sessions hundreds of kilometres away is seen as disconnecting elected leaders from wananchi, while incurring high costs for accommodation, transport, and allowances—expenses ultimately borne by taxpayers.
Civil society actors also warn that local oversight is weakened when assemblies operate outside their counties. Residents lose the opportunity to attend sessions, petition representatives, or engage directly with legislative proceedings.
Supporters of the relocation, however, insist that extraordinary circumstances sometimes require practical solutions. They maintain that the assembly’s core work—debating bills and passing motions—must continue regardless of location.
The issue has now attracted national attention, with calls for oversight institutions to intervene. Some leaders are urging the Senate and relevant authorities to assess whether such arrangements align with the Constitution and principles of devolution.
As the debate unfolds, many Kenyans are asking a fundamental question: Should county assemblies ever operate outside their counties, or does this undermine the spirit of devolution? The answer could shape future governance practices across the country.
Tags
News