Report Of Jlahrc On A Petition By Hon Maina

| HUMANRIGHTS | PAPERS LAID | |---------------------|---------------| | DATE | 11: 03 . 2626 | | TABLED BY COMMITTEE | -ARC | | CLERK AT THE TABLE | Mr.Mafaa |

Rt. Hon. Speaker You may approve for tabling. J. M. Nyegenye, C.B.S., Clerk of the senate/ secretary, PSC Dat./o...

Clerk's Chambers, The Senate, Parliament Buildings, NAIROBI.

February,2026

APPROVED RT. HON. SEN AMASON J. KINGI

TABLEOFCONTENTS

| List of Abbreviations and Acronyms.. (ii) | |---------------------------------------------------------| | Preliminaries.. .(iii) | | (iv) ForewordbytheChairperson.. | | Chapter 1:Introduction | | Right toPetition Parliament | | SummaryofthePetition. | | Chapter 2:Consideration of thePetition | | Introduction.... | | Clauseby Clause consideration oftheproposed Amendments. | | Chapter 3: Committee Observations Observations... .18 | | Chapter 4:CommitteeRecommendation Recommendation .22 | | .23 | | List of Annexes |

LISTOFABBREVIATIONSANDACRONYMS

CAF

CountyAssembliesForum

CCO

County Chief Officer

CECM

CountyExecutiveCommitteeMember

COG

CouncilofGovernors

CRA

Commission on Revenue Allocation

IGRTC

IntergovernmentalRelationsTechnical Committee

KLRC

Kenya Law Reform Commission

MCA

Memberof CountyAssembly

PSC

PublicService Commission

SRC

SalariesandRemuneration Commission

PRELIMINARIES

EstablishmentandMandateoftheCommittee

The Standing Committee onJustice,Legal Affairs and Human Rights is established under the Standing Orders of the Senate and is mandated'to consider all matters relating to constitutional affairs, the organization and administration of law and justice, elections, promotion of principles of leadership, ethics, and integrity; agreements,treaties and conventions; and implementation of the provisions of the Constitution on human rights.

MembershipoftheCommittee

The Committee is comprised of -

| | 1.Sen. Wakili Hillary Kiprotich Sigei, CBS, MP | Chairperson | |----|--------------------------------------------------|------------------| | 2. | Sen.Veronica W.Maina,CBS,MP | Vice-Chairperson | | 3. | Sen.Raphael Chimera Mwinzagu,MP | Member | | 4. | Sen. Karen Njeri Nyamu, MP | Member | | 5. | Sen.AndrewOmtatah Okoiti,MP | Member | | 6. | Sen. (Prof.) Tom Ojienda, SC, MP | Member | | 7. | Sen. Crystal Asige, MP | Member | | 8. | Sen.Daniel Kitonga Maanzo,EBS,MP | Member |

Minutes of the Committee in considering thePetition by Hon.Isaiah Maina, MCA on proposed amendments to the County Governments Act (Cap 265) are attached to this Report as Annex 1.

FOREWORDBYTHECHAIRPERSON

HonourableSpeaker,

On Tuesday, 23rd September, 2025, the Speaker of the Senate reported that a Petition had been received from Hon.Isaiah Maina,a Member of the CountyAssembly of Nandi representing Ol'lessos Ward, regarding proposed amendments to the County Governments Act (Cap.265).The amendments were proposed tobetter align the functioning of the county governments with the objects and principles of devolution as set out in the Constitution, specifically, Articles 10, 174, 175, 179, 183 and 232, among others.

HonourableSpeaker,

The Committee embarked on its consideration of thePetition,whereupon it held a meeting with the Petitioner to better understand the background, rationale and justificationfor the proposedamendments.TheCommitteefurtherinvitedand received written responses from the Office of the Attorney General, Kenya Law Reform Commission (KLRC), Council of Governors (CoG) and the County Assemblies Forum (CAF).

The submissions by these stakeholders on each proposed amendment, together with the observations and resolutionby the Committee,are detailed in Chapter Two of this Report.

Honourable Speaker,

Having considered the Petition and the submissions received thereon, the Committee resolvedtorecommendthat-

• a) theSenatepartially accepts theproposed amendment tosection58A of the County Governments Act (Cap. 265) to require that the quorum of a county public service board be at least three members and proposing a 30-day timeline for announcement ofa vacancy at the board;
• b) the Senate mandates the Standing Committee on Justice,Legal Affairs and Human Rights to introduce the said legislation for consideration by Parliament;

3. C the Senate rejects the proposed amendments to sections 2, 30(2)(d), 30(2)(e), 30(2)(1), 30(3)(f), 31(a), 32(3), 35, 39 and 45 of the County Governments Act (Cap. 265) as well as the other new provisions as proposed in the Petition; and

• (P the Council of Governors, in partnership with the Public Service Commission andotherrelevantState agencies,developsharmonizedpolicies andprocedures on leave and absence from office of county governors, deputy governors and appointed members of the county executive, and to submit a report to the Senate withinsixmonthsof the adoption of thisReport.

It is observed that the proposed amendments to the County Governments Act (Cap. 265) would need to go through the legislative process in Parliament as contemplated under theConstitution and theStandingOrdersofthetwoHousesofParliament.

Honourable Speaker,

I take this opportunity to thank the Petitioner as well as the stakeholders who submitted written comments which greatly assisted the Committee in its deliberations anddeterminationon thePetition.I commend theMembers oftheCommitteefortheir diligence in executing this assignment,and thank theoffices of theSpeaker and Clerk of the Senate for the support extended to the Committee which made the consideration ofthePetitionsuccessful.

Honourable Speaker,

It is now my pleasant duty, pursuant to standing order 238(2) of the Senate Standing Orders,to present the Report of the Standing Committee on Justice,Legal Affairs and Human Rights on its consideration of a Petition by Hon. Isaiah Maina regarding proposed amendments to the County Governments Act (Cap.265).

Signed....

YWWWAA.....Da...

SEN.WAKILIHILLARYKIPROTICHSIGEI,CBS,MP CHAIRPERSON,STANDINGCOMMITTEEONJUSTICE,LEGALAFFAIRS ANDHUMANRIGHTS

CHAPTERONE:INTRODUCTION

1.1 RighttoPetitionParliament

1. The right to present petitions to public authorities is provided for at Article 37 of the Constitution.Article119(1) further provides that^Every person has a right to petitionParliamenttoconsider anymatterwithinitsauthority,includingto enact,amendorrepealanylegislation. 2. Parliament enacted the Petition to Parliament (Procedure)Act (No.12 of 2012) to make provision for the procedure for the exercise of this right. Further, Part XXVII of theStanding Orders of theSenate also makesprovision ofhow this rightmay be exercised.

1.2 SummaryofthePetition

3. At the sitting of the Senate held on Tuesday, 23rd September, 2025, the Speaker of the Senate reported that a Petition had been received from Hon. Isaiah Maina, aMemberof theCountyAssemblyof Nandi representingOl'lessosWard, regarding proposed amendments to the County Governments Act (Cap. 265). 4. The amendments were proposed to better align the functioning of the county governments with the objects and principles of devolution as set out in the Constitution, specifically, Articles 10, 174, 175, 179, 183 and 232, among others. A copy of the Petition is attached to this Report as Annex 2.

5.The salient issues raised in thePetition were -

• a) That Section 32 (e)of the County Governments Act (Cap.265) empowers the governor to constitute a County Executive Committee portfolio structure, while Section 46 of the Act grants the County Executive Committee (CEC) authority to determine the organisation of the county and its departments.This creates ambiguity regarding the respectiveroles of the governor and the CEC in the county administrative structure. The petitioner thereforerequestsfor an amendment toSection32(e)and 46of theAct to clarify the term organisation of the county or alternatively,replaceSection 32 (e) of the Act, with a provision establishing a uniform organisational structureforcounties.
• b) That, Section 32 (1) of the Act provides that the governor shall assign and cause tobepublished in the County GazetteNoticeof all importantformal decisions by the governor or by the county executive.However,the Act lacks a clear definition of what constitutes important formal decisions. The petitioner requestsfor anamendment toSection32(1)toinclude a definition for important formal decisions,settimelines for gazettement, require immutable timestamps, include county expenditure and electronic funds transfer (EFT) reports as formal decisions and provide sanctions for non-compliance.
• c) That,Section 33(a)of the Act holds the countygovernor accountablefor managing county resources, but does not explicitly require accountability to the county assembly,contrary toArticle 183(3) of the Constitution.The petitionerrequests an amendment toSection33(f)of theAct toestablish a clear accountability mechanism requiring the governor to be accountable to thecountyassembly.
• d) That, pursuant to Section 31 (a) of the Act, a governor can dismiss CEC members without checks,undermining collective executive responsibility. The petitioner requestsfor an amendmenttothesectiontorequire consultation and concurrence for at least 50 per cent of the county assembly present and votingbefore dismissal of a CEC member.
• e) That,pursuant to Section 32 (3) of the Act,the governor may assign the deputy governor executive portfolios. This risks reducing the deputy governor to an ordinary CEC member. The petitioner requests that Section 32 (3) of the Act be amended to expressly exempt the deputy governor from approval and removal processes intended for CEC members.

6. That, the appointment process for CEC members as envisioned under Section35of theActlackstransparency andconsistencyinthesourcing, shortlisting and nomination process. The petitioner requests for an amendmenttoSection35oftheActtoincludeaclearmerit-basedprocess for sourcing, shortlisting, nomination and appointment of CEC members.

• g) That,Section 45lacks clarity on the qualificationsfor countychiefofficers and does not provide for the reassignment and removal procedures.The petitioner,therefore,requestsfor an amendment indicating the specification of required competencies and a well-defined removal framework.

• h) That, Sections 58 and 58 (a) of the Act are vague regarding timelines for filing vacancies in the County Public Service Board (CPSB), minimum quorumforlegaloperationandtherepresentationofminoritiesand marginalised groups. The petitioner, therefore, requests amendments to impose a 14-day deadline for filling vacancies, require a minimum of three members for board's operations and ensure inclusive representation.
• i) That, additionally, governors often make acting appointments without county assembly approval contrary to Article 259 (11) of the Constitution. The petitioner, therefore, requests the introduction of a new section mandating compliance with approval procedures and that violation thereof begroundsforremoval of agovernor.
• j) That,therelacks clear leave procedures for governors,deputy governors and CEC members.The term'absence'under Section 2 of the Act is undefined, creating governance risk. The petitioner requests an amendment to define absence and special circumstances, establish formal leave duration of 20 to 30 days annually and provide for proper handover proceduresduringsuchleave.

6. Consequently,the petitioner prayed that the Senate intervenes by way of amending the County Governments Act (Cap. 265) in line with the proposals statedabove. 7. Pursuant to Standing Order 238(1), the Speaker committed the Petition to the Standing Committee on Justice, Legal Affairs and Human Rights for consideration.

CHAPTERTWO:CONSIDERATIONOFTHEPETITION

2.1 Introduction

8. Uponcommittalof thePetition,theCommitteemetwiththePetitioner on Tuesday, 30"h September, 2025, whereupon he took Members through the background, rationale and justification for the proposed amendments to the County GovernmentsAct(Cap.265). 9. The Committee further invited and received written responses from -

• a) the Office oftheAttorneyGeneral;
• b) the Kenya Law Reform Commission (KLRC);
• c) the Council of Governors (CoG); and
• d) the CountyAssembliesForum(CAF).

7. 10.The submissions by various stakeholders on eachproposed amendment,together with the observations and resolution by the Committee,are detailed in the section below,while copies of the submissions areattached to thisReport as Annex3.

2.2 Proposedamendmenttosection2oftheCountyGovernmentsActtodefine theterm'absent'

11. Thepetitionerproposed that section 2of theActbeamended toinclude a definition of the term"absent"and what it shall entail in respect to the governor and deputy governor. 12. COG agreed to this proposal but noted that there is no similar provision at the national level asthisisusually administrativelymanagedbetweenthepresident and the deputy president. 13. CAFsupported this proposalas the ambiguityaroundwhat constitutes "absence" of Governor or Deputy Governor has led to inconsistencies in interpretations and governance gaps. The stakeholder proposed that the term "absent"be defined in a manner consistent with Article 182 of the Constitution and include a requirement for written notification to the deputy governor and countygovernor. 14. KLRC submitted that Article 182 of the Constitution already covers temporary incapacity andvacancyin the Governor's office.The stakeholder added that a statutory definition of"absence"could distort this constitutional provision and

proposed that the issue should be handled through administrative procedures; such as regulations or circulars requiring notification to the county assembly when the Governor or Deputy Governor is away. The stakeholder further proposed that the guidelines should be developed jointly by the PSC, SRC, and CoGunder their constitutional and statutory mandates,rather than through amendmentstotheprincipalAct.

CommitteeResolution

15. .The Committee noted thatArticle 182 of the constitution covers temporary incapacity and vacancy in the Governor's office, and adding a statutory definition of "absence" could distort this constitutional provision.The Committee proposed that instead,the issue should be handled through administrative procedures - such as regulations or circulars - requiring notification to the county assemblywhen the Governor orDeputy Governor is away.The Committee therefore rejected the proposed amendment. 2. 2.3 Proposed amendmenttosection2of theCountyGovernmentsActtodefine the term'special circumstances' 3. 16.The petitioner proposed that section 2 of the Act be amended to define the term "special circumstances" during which a county governor or deputy governor or appointed members of the county executive on leave shall be expected to resume workorperformofficialduties. 17. COG opposed this proposal as governors and deputy governors are state officers who are not subject to the terms of office for public officers.The stakeholder further submitted that their proceeding on leaveis an administrative arrangement that does not need tobelegislated upon and is not necessary as it is already provided in the Constitution and section 35(2) of the principal Act. 18. CAF submitted that defining "special circumstances" risks subjectivity and proposed that the term"special circumstances"should be narrowly defined and be objective.The stakeholder recommended that to prevent abuse,the term should be limited to clear,verifiable emergencies such as national disasters, security crises, or court orders, with any invocation requiring public justification. 6. 19.KLRC submitted that the matter isbest addressed through administrative circulars or human resource guidelines developed collaboratively by the Public

Service Commission, the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC), and the Council of Governors (COG).

CommitteeResolution

20. TheCommitteenotedthatArticle182of theConstitutioncoverstemporary incapacity andvacancyin the Governor's office and thusthematter canbe handled administratively.The Committeethereforerejected theproposed amendment.

2.4Proposed amendment to section 30(2)(d) of the County Governments Act

• 21.7 Thepetitioner proposed that section30(2)(d)of theAct be amended tomake the appointments of CEC Members subject toArticle 179 (2)(b) and section35 of theAct.

22. COG submitted that the proposal is not necessary as it is already provided for in the Constitution and Section35(2) ofthePrincipal Act. 23. CAF submitted that Article 179(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 35 of the Principal Act already govern the appointment of CECs thus the proposal is redundant and is not necessary. 24. KLRC submitted that theproposed linkbetween section30(2)(d) and Section35 is sound in purpose, but the provision already reads harmoniously with Article 179(2)(b) and that no statutory amendment is required. The stakeholder proposed that interpretiveguidance could beissued through a circularfrom theState DepartmentforDevolution toclarify that appointmentsof CECmembersmust adheretoboth theconstitution and theAct.

CommitteeResolution

• 25.The Committee rejected this amendment noting that the provision is alreadyprovidedforinArticle179(2)(b)of theConstitution andSection35 oftheActand thereisnoneed tooverlegislate.
• 2.5Proposed amendment to section30(2)(e)of the County GovernmentsAct

26. Thepetitioner proposed that this section be deleted and replacedwith a provision establishing a uniform organizational structurefor all counties.

• 27.COG opposed the provisionof auniformorganizational structure for all counties, as every county is unique in the requirements for effectiveness of its servicedelivery and submitted that allowing countiestodeterminehowtheyare organized allows for efficiency in service delivery.
• 28.The stakeholder further submitted that there is no contradiction between Section 30(2)(e)andSection46of thePrincipalAct asSection30(2)(e)provides the Governor'smandatetoappointcountyexecutivecommitteememberswhereas section46expounds on theexecutive committee'smandate todetermine and approvethenatureofcountydepartments.

29. CAFsupportedthis proposalas uniformitywould enhance inter-county comparability,improve national coordination and reduce politicization of departmentalconfigurations.CAFproposed that the templatemust allowfor limited contextual adaptation to accommodate unique county needs such as pastoralistvs.urban counties.The stakeholder recommended theadoptionof a minimum core structuresuch as Finance, Health, Agriculture,Lands, and PublicServicewithroomforcountiesto addcontext-specificdepartments.

• 30.KLRC submitted that this proposal raises constitutional and policy concerns as Article6(2)oftheConstitutionestablishescountiesasdistinctgovernmentswith discretiontodeterminetheirinternalstructures.Thestakeholderaddedthat imposing uniformity through law would contravene that principle and proposed thataModel CountyOrganizationalFrameworkbedevelopedthroughthePublic Service Commission (PSC), the Intergovernmental Relations Technical Committee (IGRTC) and the COG,for adoption by counties through administrativeresolutionsratherthanthelegislation.
• 31.The Office of the Attorney General submitted that creating a standard template for all counties may be impractical, as every county government has its own uniqueneedsandrequirementsandthatthisisfurtherstipulatedandreflectedin Article176(2)oftheConstitution.

CommitteeResolution

• 32.TheCommitteenoted that theConstitutionprotectsdevolution and the autonomy of counties.It resolved toreject the proposal as it is overreaching since counties vary in their sizes and have unique challenges.

2.6Proposed amendment to section 30(2)(l) of the County Governments Act

• 33.The petitioner proposesamendmentstosubsection 2(1)to provide for the following details concerning"important formal decisions":
• a) Themeaning andscope of animportantformal decision.
• b) Timelinesforgazettement and communication.
• c) Inclusion of immutable time stamps for all such decisions.
• d) Require county expenditure decisionsin the formof financialreports (reportedunderArticle183(3)of theconstitution)toincludeElectronic Funds Transfer Reports and certified bank statements held by the County, including Assembly reports.
• e Provide sanctions for failure to comply with these requirements,which may include suspension and/or removalfromofficewithout theneedfor a vote by the assembly.

34. COGopposed theproposals and noted thatthe countygazettehasnotbeen operationalized.Itfurther submitted thatdeterminingwhat togazetteshould remainanadministrativedecision.

• 35.Thestakeholder added thatCitizensalreadyhaveaconstitutionalrighttoaccess informationunderArticle35of theConstitution,whileSections163-168of the Act provide adequate reporting obligations. Therefore, additional prescriptions orsanctionsfornon-complianceareunnecessary.

36. CAF supported this proposalaslack of definitionhas enabledopacityin gubernatorial decision-making and added that requiring immutable timestamps, certifiedfinancialreportsandbankstatementsalignswithArticle10on transparency and Article 232 on public servicevalues.

• 37.The stakeholder recommended that reporting and documentation requirements be retained but linknon-compliance toinitiation of removal proceedings,not automaticousterfromthecountyassembly.

38. KLRC submittedthatthelackof clear criteriafor what qualifies as a formal decision has led to selective gazettement, undermining legality and audit trails. KLRCrecommends addressing thisthroughsubsidiarylegislation that defines such decisions—such as executive orders, appointments, delegations, and strategicplans—andrequires theirgazettement within14days,thereby enhancing transparency while preserving flexibility.

• 39.TheOfficeof theAttorneyGeneral submitted that there is adisconnect on what exactly the proposer intends to constitute as a failure to comply,which will warrant sanction and added that this proposal requires further clarification to ensure comprehension and informed guidance on the matter.

CommitteeResolution

• 40.The Committee resolved to reject the amendment, noting that it is not possible to exhaustively define what is important.The Committee proposed thatthemattershouldbelefttothediscretionofthecountyexecutive.

2.7Proposed amendment to section30(3)(f)of the County Governments Act

• 41.The petitioner proposed amendment to this section to establish a clear accountability mechanism,requiring the Governor and the Deputy Governor to be accountable to the people through the County Assemblies,by providing reports envisaged under Article 183(3) of the Constitution and answering questions in the Assembly alongside CEC Members.
• 42.KLRC submitted that embedding this in the Act would institutionalize accountabilitycyclesandcreatepredictabilityforassembliestoschedulesuch sessions alongsidebudget and development reviews.

CommitteeResolution

• 43.The Committee resolved to reject the amendment, noting that submission of reportstothecountyassembliesisalreadyprovidedforunderArticle 183(3) of the Constitution.

2.8Proposed amendment tosection31(a)of the County GovernmentsAct

44. The petitioner proposed the deletion of this subsection, and that it be replaced with a new subsection requiring the governor to seek the consultation and concurrence of at least 50%of members of the County Assembly when reassigning a member of the executive committee to a portfolio other than the onetheywerevettedfor. 45. COG was opposed to the proposal and stated that CECMs are state officers under Article 260 of the Constitution and are appointees who once vetted by the County Assembly at appointment, may be reassigned to ensure efficiency in

service delivery.Thestakeholder added that there isno correspondingprovision of approval of re-assignmentsfor cabinet secretaries as at the national level.

46. CAF supported the proposal requiring County Assembly concurrence when a CEC member is reassigned to a substantially different portfolio,particularly where the original vetting was based on specialized expertise. The stakeholder addedthatminoradjustmentsshouldremainwithin theGovernor'sdiscretion. CAFfurtherrecommendedintroducingathresholdsothatnewvettingis required if thereassignment fallsoutsidethe nominee'sdeclaredareaof competence.

CommitteeResolution

47. TheCommitteeresolved torejecttheamendmentnotingthatitisoverly prescriptive.and proposed that the discretion should belong to the approving authority i.e.thegovernor.

2.9Proposed amendment tosection32(3)of the County Governments Act

48. The petitioner proposed the deletion of subsection 3 and replacing it with a new subsection clarifying that thegovernormay onlydelegateresponsibilities to the deputy governor in writing,but not as a member of the county executive committeeunderArticle179(2)(b)or where thelawprovidesotherwisc. 49. COG opposed this proposal noting the constitutional parallel between the governor-deputy governor and the president-deputy president relationship in Kenya's governance structures. The stakeholder submitted that the Principal Act affords each governor the flexibility to delegate responsibilities based on the county needs, mirroring how the President assigns functions to the Deputy PresidentviaExecutiveOrdersatthenationallevel. 3. 50.The stakeholder further submitted that such assignment of responsibilities to the 51. CAFsupported thedeletion of thissubsectionnotingthat thedeputygovernor shouldnotbesubordinatetothegovernorasaCECmemberandfurther recommended that therole of theDeputy Governorbe affirmed assuccessor-inwaiting and principal assistant to thegovernor.

• 52.KLRC recommended amending section 32 to explicitly require that delegation of duties be made in writing, gazetted and filed with the county assembly, and to clarify that such delegation does not confer independent portfoliostatus nor alter theDeputy Governor's substantiverole. The stakeholder added that this would align county practice with the national precedent where the Deputy President maycoordinate or chairfunctions but doesnothold a ministerial docket

CommitteeResolution

• 53.The Committeeresolved toreject the amendmentnotingthatthegovernor may assign a county executive committeeportfolio to the deputygovernor, without interfering with the deputy governor's mandate as the principal assistant to the governor.

2.10Proposed amendmenttosection35of theCountyGovernmentsAct

• 54.The petitioner proposed amendment to section 35 to provide a clear process for sourcing, shortlisting and nominating persons for vetting and appointment to the officeofamemberofthecountyexecutivecommittee

55. COG submitted that the proposal is over prescriptive as the current section 35 provides sufficient qualifications and appointment requirements for CECMs as they are state officers. 56. CAF supported the proposal noting that the absence of a transparent, meritbased nominationframeworkhasled topatronage andweakvetting and that the proposednominationcriteriaalignedwithArticles10and232 of the Constitution.The stakeholder recommended thattheamendmentincludes the requirement of public advertisement, stakeholder input and publication of shortlistspriortonomination.

• 57.1 KLRCsubmitted thattheGovernorhasconstitutionalauthoritytoconstitutethe county cabinet, while the assembly provides oversight to ensure integrity, competence and diversity.The stakeholder added that introducing additional statutory or regulatory procedures for sourcing, shortlisting,and nomination would undulyrestrict this executivefunction and shift it into an administrative process.
• 58.The stakeholder further submitted that existing vetting under the Public Appointments (CountyAssemblies)Approval Act alreadyaddresses

qualifications and suitability and that nofurther regulations are needed.Instead, theyproposed the strengthening of countyassemblies'vetting capacity and adherencetoArticles10 and232 as themoreconstitutionally sound approach.

CommitteeResolution

59. The Committee resolved to reject the proposal noting that the Governor's prerogative to nominate is constitutional. The Committee noted that overprescription risks rigidity since the short list will be examined at the vetting stageand that no similar provisionsexist in thenational government.It proposed that transparency can be enhanced by strengthening vetting under thePublic Appointments (County Assemblies)Approval Act and encouragingpublic advertisement ofvacancies.

2.11Proposedamendmenttosection39oftheCountyGovernmentsAct

• 60.1 Thepetitionerproposed theinsertion of a provision in subsection 2 torequire the governor and/or deputy governor to attend and/or appear before a committee of the county assembly to answer questions and provide evidence regarding their duties.

61. COG opposes this proposal as the current subsection (2) as framed allows for the Governor or Deputy Governor,as members of the county executive,to appearbeforethecountyassemblytoanswerquestionsrelatingtotheir responsibilities. 62. CAF supported the proposal noting that Article 183(3) of the Constitution obligatesthecounty executivecommittee toreport to the assembly;and that the governor and deputy as its head and deputy, must be personally accountable. The stakeholder recommendedmandating the appearancewithin14 days of summons,with penalties such as censure or budget withholding for noncompliance.

• 63." KLRC noted that Article 183(3) and Section 39 already provide for regular reporting, and that the proposed amendment would reinforce accountability by institutionalizing appearances within the accountability calendar. The stakeholder further submittedthat thisalignswithArticles10and185(3), enhancing transparencywithout limiting executive autonomy and that it supports a clarificatory amendment requiring Governors and Deputies to present biannual performance reports to the assembly and to appear when summoned for clarifications.

CommitteeResolution

64. TheCommitteeresolvedtorejecttheamendmenttermingitasoverly prescriptive as the provision exists in the Constitution under Article 183(3).

2.12Proposed amendmenttoSection 45of theCounty GovernmentsAct

65. The petitioner proposes amendments to clarify the competencies required for the appointment of county chief officers (whether specific to a department or general), introduce a provision allowing the governor to re-assign a county chief officer to a different department only with the concurrence of the county assembly and provide for the grounds and process for the removal of county chief officers. 66. COG opposed the proposal, noting that CCOs once vetted by the County Assembly at appointment, may be reassigned to ensure efficiency in service delivery and that there is no corresponding provision of approval of reassignments in departments at the national level. The stakeholder proposed that a procedureforremovalmaybeprovidedinregulationsasopposedtothe Principal Act as section 45(6)(c) provides for the removal of CCO. 67. CAF supported this proposal clarifying that CCO appointments are portfoliospecific, given their technical nature. CAF noted that reassignment to a different technical field should require assembly concurrence since the current vagueness enables arbitrarydismissals.Thestakeholder recommended that theremoval process be aligned with Public Service Commission procedures. 4. 68.KLRC submitted that the proposed clarification on grounds for removal is unnecessary,as CountyPublicServiceBoards alreadyhave authority to make disciplinarydecisionsunder national human resourcelaws.The stakeholder added that the existing frameworks-the PublicService eCommission Regulations and the Public Service(Values and Principles)Act—adequately cover grounds for removal, leaving no legislative gap that requires amendment.

CommitteeResolution

• 69.TheCommitteeresolvedtorejecttheamendmentasitwasover prescriptive. The Committee further noted that the County Public Service Board has adequateguidelinesinplaceforremoval of Chief Officers.

2.13Proposedamendmenttosection58AoftheCountyGovernmentsAct

• 70.The petitioner proposes for the provision for time limits between the occurrence of avacancyin theposition of chair and/or secretary,thefall of membership to less than three and theformation of a selectionpanel, limitingthisperiod to not exceed 14 days.

71. COGwas agreeable to provision on quorum,inclusive representation of certain groups and having timelines for declaration of a vacancy in the CPSB. 72. CAFsupportedthe proposedamendments toSection58Aontimelines, transparent nominee sourcing, quorum, and part-time operations with clear protocols. However, it opposes requiring non-residents to serve on County Public Service Boards, as this undermines local accountability under devolution. ItrecommendsamendingSection58A torequire allnominees toberegistered county residents, while expressly mandating inclusion of minority and marginalized communityrepresentativesfromwithin thecounty to ensureboth accountability and equitablerepresentation. 73. KLRC submitted that while the proposal aligns with constitutional values of inclusiveness and diversity under Articles 56 and 232(1)(h), KLRC notes these obligations are already embedded in law. The stakeholder identified the real challengeliesinweakcompliance and enforcement,as shownbyPSCandNCIC audits and proposed that reform should therefore focus on accountability and sanctionsratherthannewlegislation. 74. KLRC further recommended that PSC, through regulations under Section 59 of the County Governments Act, require annual diversity implementation reports from County Public Service Boards, with administrative sanctions (e.g., suspension of recruitment approvals or remedial measures) for non-compliance thus amendment toSection58A is not necessary.

CommitteeResolution

TheCommitteeresolved topartiallyacceptthisamendment,byaccepting thatthequorum of theCPSBbeatleastthreemembers andproposinga30day timelinefor announcement of avacancyattheboard.

2.14 Proposed amendment to insert a new provision on the procedure for dealing withinvestigativereportsbycountyassemblies

• 75.The petitioner proposed that the Act be amended by inserting a new provision on the procedures for county assemblies to follow when dealing with investigative reports,especially those arising from ad-hoc committees. The section is to mandate that if an investigative report returns a verdict of gross violation of the constitution or law,the assembly shall consider the merits and should not vote to reject a report whose findings can be substantiated unequivocally.
• CAF supported mandating evidentiary deliberation before rejecting investigative reports and proposed that the assembly must retainfinalvoting discretion under Article 179(2)(b) and separation of powers. CAF recommended that that a substantive debate and recorded justification for rejecting reports with credible evidencebe a requirementrather than automatic adoption.
• 77.KLRC submitted that while this proposal underscores the importance of evidence-based oversight, it touches on the internal workings of the legislature, and noted that Article185(3) and the CountyAssembliesPowers andPrivileges Act,2017 protect assemblies' procedural autonomy.The stakeholder further submittedthat thismatteristhereforebestaddressedthroughamendmentsto county standing orders rather than statute.

CommitteeResolution

• 78.TheCommitteenoted thatAssembliesenjoyprocedural autonomyunder Article185(3)andmandating adoptionof reports wouldundermine separation ofpowers.It recommended thatinstead,Standing Orders should require substantive debate and recorded justification before rejecting evidence-basedreports.

2.15Proposedamendment toinsertanewprovisionon theexerciseofshared powersbetweenthegovernorandthecountyassembly

79. CAFsubmitted that theproposal isredundant asArticle259(11)of the Constitution is self-executing and proposed that having a reminder clause may enhanceawareness.The stakeholderrecommendedincludingtheproposal as a guiding principle in the Act's preamble or interpretation section,not as a standalone enforcement provision.

• 80.COG acknowledged that the Constitution ought toberead togetherwithActs of ParliamentthatstatewhotheGovernorneedstoconsultinmakinghis/her decisions and submitted that there is noneed torestate thisin thePrincipalAct.

CommitteeResolution

• 81.The Committee resolved to reject the proposed amendment, noting that the provision is self-executing and thatrestating it in statute is redundant.
• 2.16Proposedamendment toinsertanewsectionmandatingannualleavefor the county governor, deputy governor and appointed members of the countyexecutive

82. Thepetitioner proposed theinsertion of a newSection to providefor mandatory annual leave for the county governor, deputy county governor, and appointed members of the county executive, requiring a minimum of 20 days and a maximumof30daysleaveyearly. 83. CAF supported this proposal because it supports wellness and prevents burnout. Ithowever noted thathandoversmustbeformalized toavoidpowervacuums and proposed that a written handover to the deputy governor and a public notice be made noting that the provision should limit official acts during leave to emergencies. 84. COG submitted that this is an administrative arrangement as these are state officers,hence there is no need to provide this in the Principal Act 85. KLRCsubmittedthattheintentionmaybetoregularizeadministrative continuity,butnotedthatsuchprovisions aremisplacedinprimarylegislation. Thestakeholder alludedtotheEmployment Act,2007andpublicservice manuals which already cover leavefor employees,whereas stateofficers'terms areguided byleadership and integrity obligations.It proposed thattheissue is thereforepurely administrative andshouldbehandled throughguidelines issued by specifying procedure for temporary delegation during absence.

CommitteeResolution

• 86.The Committee resolved toreject theproposed amendment,noting that undermining accountability. It proposed that instead, a formal handover procedures and public notice during absence be a requirement.

• 2.17Proposedamendment toprovide forthe creationof aninter-county institution to scrutinize project identification,distribution and execution withincounties
• 87.The petitioner proposed the insertion of a new Section providing for the creation of an inter-county institution with a mandate to scrutinize and analyze project identification, distribution, and execution within counties.

88. CAF submitted that the proposal risks duplication as the functions overlap with Controller of Budget, Auditor-General and the Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA). The stakeholder recommended thatSenate's oversight role be strengthened or the CRA be tasked with monitoring equity in project distribution. 89. COG submitted that the proposal is not necessary as county planning including identification, approval and oversight of project execution is overseen by the county assemblyunderPartXI of thePrincipal Act.The stakeholder added that counties that wish to collaborate on execution of projects are allowed to form joint committees and joint authorities under Article189(2)ofthe constitution. 90. KLRC submitted that theproposal to create an inter-countyinstitutionunder Section 36 is unnecessary and constitutionally misaligned. The stakeholder added that the existingframeworks-CIDPs under the County GovernmentsAct and inter-county mechanismsunder theIntergovernmental Relations Act,2012 (including COG and IGRTC)—already provide for planning, consultation, coordination, and evaluation, thus establishing another institution would duplicate mandates, distort accountability, and add bureaucracy.

• 91.The Office of the Attorney General submitted that the proposal is not necessary as the Act establishes monitoring mechanisms within a clear governance framework and departments, where defined roles exist at the county level,which canbeutilized toidentifycommunityneedsand enhanceproject successwithin counties.

CommitteeResolution

92. The Committee resolved that creating a new body duplicates existing oversight.It noted that Senate, CRA,and IGRTC alreadyprovide intercountyscrutiny andproposed that strengthening theirmandatesismore efficientthancreatingnewbureaucracy.

CHAPTERTHREE:OBSERVATIONS

3.1 CommitteeObservations

93. Having considered the Petition, received the testimony by the Petitioner, and considered the written and oral submissions by the Council of Governors, County Assemblies Forum,Kenya Law Reform Commission and the Office of the Attorney General, the Standing Committee on Justice, Legal Affairs and Human Rights observed and resolved as follows with regard to the proposed amendmentsto theCountyGovernmentsAct(Cap.265)-

| No. | ProposedAmendment | CommitteeResolution | |-------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | Proposed amendment to section2oftheActto definetheterm‘absent' | TheCommitteenoted thatArticle182of the constitution covers temporary incapacity and vacancy in the Governor's office, and adding a statutory definition of “absence” could distort this constitutional provision. The Committee proposed that, instead, the issue shouldbehandledthroughadministrative procedures - such as regulations or circulars - requiring notification to the County Assembly when theGovernor orDeputyGovernor is away.The Committee thereforerejected the proposed amendment. | | 2. | Proposedamendmentto section 2oftheAct to definetheterm‘special circumstances' | TheCommitteenotedthatArticle182ofthe Constitution covers temporary incapacity and vacancy in the Governor's office and thus the matter can be handled administratively. The Committee therefore rejected the proposed amendment. | | 3. | Proposedamendmentto section30(2)(d)oftheAct | TheCommitteerejectedthisamendment noting that the provision is already provided for in Article 179(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section35oftheAct and thereis noneed to over legislate. | | 4. | Proposed amendmentto section30(2)(e)ofthe Act | TheCommittee noted that theConstitution protects devolution and the autonomy of counties.It resolved to reject the proposal as it is overreaching since counties vary in their |

| | | sizes and have unique challenges. | |-----|------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 5. | Proposed amendment to section 30(2)(1) of the Act | The Committee resolved to reject the amendment, noting that it is not possible to exhaustively define what is important.The Committee proposed that the matter should be left to the discretion of the county executive. | | 6. | Proposed amendment to section30(3)(f) ofthe Act | The Committee resolved to reject the amendment, noting that submission of reports to the county assemblies is already provided for under Article 183(3) of the Constitution. | | 7. | Proposed amendment to section 31(a)ofthe Act | The Committee resolved to reject the amendment noting that isoverly prescriptive and proposed that the discretion should belong to the approving authority i.e. the governor. | | 8. | Proposed amendment to section 32(3) ofthe Act | The Committee eresolvedtoreject the amendment noting that the governor may assign a county executivecommitteeportfolio to the deputy governor, without interfering with the deputy governor's mandate as the principal assistant to the governor | | 9 | Proposed amendment to section35of theCounty GovernmentsAct | The Committee resolved to reject the proposal notingthat theGovernor's prerogativeto nominate is constitutional.The Committee notedthat over-prescription risks rigidity sincetheshortlistwillbeexaminedatthe vettingstage and thatnosimilar provisions exist in the national government. It proposed that transparencycan be enhanced by strengthening vetting underthePublic Appointments (County AssembliesApproval) Act (Cap. 265B) and encouraging public advertisement ofvacancies | | 10. | Proposed amendment to section39oftheAct | The Committeeresolvedto rejectthe amendment terming it asoverlyprescriptive asthe provision exists in the Constitution under Article 183(3). | | 11. | Proposed amendment to Section 45oftheAct | The Committee eresolvedtorejectthe amendment as it was over prescriptive.The |

| | | Committee further noted that the County PublicServiceBoardhas adequateguidelines in place for removal of Chief Officers. | |-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 12. | Proposedamendmentto section58AoftheAct | The Committee resolved to partially accept this amendment, by accepting that the quorum of the CPSB be at least three members and proposing a 30-day timeline for announcement of a vacancy at the board. | | 13. | Proposed amendment to insertanewprovisionon the procedure for dealing with investigative reports by county assemblies | The Committee noted that county assemblies enjoy procedural autonomy under Article 185(3)and mandating adoption of reports would undermine separation of powers.It recommended that instead, Standing Orders should require substantive debateand recorded justification before rejecting evidence-basedreports | | 14. | Proposed amendmentto insertanewprovisionon the exercise of shared powers between the governor and the county assembly | TheCommitteeresolvedto reject the proposed amendment, noting that the provisionis self-executing and thatrestating it instatuteisredundant | | 15. | Proposedamendmentto insert anewsection mandatingannualleave for the county governor, deputy governor and appointed members of the county executive | The Committee resolvedtoreject the proposed amendment, noting that leave for state officers is not statutory and that mandatory leave risks undermining accountability.It proposed that instead,a formal handover procedures and public notice during absence be a requirement. | | 16. | Proposedamendmentto provide for the creation of aninter-countyinstitution to scrutinize project identification,distribution andexecutionwithin counties | The Committeeresolved that creating a new bodyduplicates existingoversight.It noted that Senate, CRA, and IGRTC already provide inter-county scrutiny and proposed thatstrengthening their mandates is more efficientthan creatingnewbureaucracy. |

94. TheCommitteefurther observes thatthePetitioncalledupon theSenate toenact specific amendments to the County Governments Act (Cap. 265). The adoption of this Report, including some of the proposals by the Petitioner, would not automatically give rise to amendment of the said provisions.Instead, these would need to go through the legislative process in Parliament as contemplated under the Constitution and theStanding Orders of the twoHouses of Parliament.

CHAPTERFOUR:RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1CommitteeRecommendations

• 95.Arising from its consideration of the Petition, the submissions received thereto, and based onits Observations as set out in thepreceding Chapter,theStanding Committee onJustice,Legal Affairs andHumanRightsrecommends that-
• e the Senate partially accepts the proposed amendment tosection58A of the County Governments Act (Cap. 265) to require that the quorum of a county publicserviceboard be at least three members andproposinga 30-day timelinefor announcement of avacancy at theboard;
• f) theSenatemandates theStandingCommitteeonJustice,Legal Affairs and HumanRightstointroducethesaidlegislationforconsiderationby Parliament;
• g) the Senate rejects the proposed amendments to sections 2, 30(2)(d), 30(2)(e), 30(2)(1), 30(3)(f), 31(a), 32(3), 35, 39 and 45 of the County Governments Act (Cap.265)as wellas the other new provisions as proposedinthePetition;and
• h) the Council of Governors in partnership with the Public Service Commission and otherrelevantStateagencies developharmonizedpolicies and procedures on leave and absence from office of county governors, deputy governors and appointed members of the county executive, and to submitareporttotheSenatewithin sixmonthsoftheadoptionof this Report.

LISTOFANNEXES

Annex1:

Minutes of the Committee in considering the Petition

Annex2:

Copy of the Petition

Annex3:

Submissions receivedinresponse to thePetition

Annex 1: Minutes of the Committee in considering the Petition

esJunm X9nnA

sntto

13TH PARLIAMENT5T" SESSION

MINUTES OF THE 264T SITTING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE,LEGALAFFAIRSANDHUMANRIGHTSHELD ONTHURSDAY 191FEBRUARY,2026AT8:00A.M.VIRTUALLYONTHEZOOMONLINE MEETINGPLATFORM

PRESENT

• 1.Sen.Wakili Hillary Sigei,CBS,MP

-Chairperson(Chairing)

• 2.

• Sen.Veronica W.Maina,CBS,MP

-Vice-chairperson

3. Sen.AndrewOmtatahOkoiti,MP

• -Member

4. Sen.Daniel Kitonga Maanzo,EBS,MP

-Member

5. Sen.Crystal Kegehi Asige,MP

-Member

6. Sen.(Prof.) Tom Ojienda, SC, MP

-Member

ABSENTWITHAPOLOGY

• 1.Sen. Karen Njeri Nyamu, MP

-Member

• 2.Sen.Raphael ChimeraMwinzagu,MP

-Member

SECRETARIAT

• 1.Mr. Boniface Kiambi

-Senior ClerkAssistant(TakingMinutes)

• 2.

• Ms.Faith Wangui

• Legal Counsel II

• 3.

• Ms.Angela Bonaya

• Clerk Assistant III

4. Ms.Linet Aseka

• Research Officer III

5. Mr.Josphat Ngeno

-MediaRelationsOfficer

6. Ms. Rosebella Ngesa

-PublicCommunications Officer

7. Mr.Zenton Williams

-Audio Officer

• 8.

• Ms.Anne Kigoro

• Pupil

MIN.NO.843/2026 PRELIMINARIES

The meeting was called to order at twelve minutes past cight O'clock and opened with a word ofPrayer.

MIN.NO.844/2026 ADOPTIONOFTHEAGENDA

The Agcnda of themcetingwas adopted having been proposed by Sen.Daniel Kitonga Maanzo,EBS,MPandseconded bySen.AndrewOmtatahOkoiti,MP.

MIN.NO.845/2026

THE BUDGET POLICY STATEMENT FOR FY 2026/2027-GOVERNANCE,JUSTICE,LAW AND ORDERSECTOR

TheCommittee resumed deliberationsonthe BudgetPolicyStatementforFY 2026/2027,with specificreference to the Governancc,Justice,Law and Order(GJLO) Sector.

During deliberations-

• a)Memberssoughtclarification onhow therecommendationsby the Committeeon theBudgetPolicyStatementinformed theeventualpreparationoftheBudget Estimates fortheFinancial Year;and
• b PolicyStatement and itslegislativeimplications.

Thereupon,theCommitteeresolvedthatitsobservationsontheBudgetPolicyStatement be transmitted to theStandingCommitteeonFinance andBudgetforinclusionin the consolidatedSenateReport ontheBudgetPolicyStatementforFY2026/2027.

MIN.NO.846/2026

PETITIONBYHON.ISAIAHMAINAREGARDING PROPOSEDAMENDMENTSTOTHECOUNTY GOVERNMENTSACT(CAP.265)

The Committee was taken through a Brief highlighting its previous consideration of the Petition by Hon. Isaiah Maina whereupon the Committee adopted its Report on 25h November,2025fortablingintheScnate.

Memberswereinformed thatwhile,initsReport,the Committeerecommended that the Directorate of Legal Services drafts the text of the proposed amendments to the clauses onwhichtheCommitteeconcurredwith thePetitioner,followingwhich theCommittee would sponsor theBill for introduction in the Senate,concern had been raised on the potential difficulties that this presented during debate in plenary on the Committee report,as itwasnot clearwhatexactly theHousewasbeing asked toresolvc.

Consequently,following deliberations,theCommitteeresolved torevise ChapterFour oftheReporttorecommendthat-

• a) GovermmentsAct(Cap.265) to require that the quorum of a county public service board be at least three mcmbers and proposing a 30-day timeline for announcementofavacancy at theboard;
• b) the Senate mandates the Standing Committec onJustice,Legal Affairs and Human Rightsto introduce thesaidlegislationforconsiderationbyParliament;
• c) the Senate rejects the proposed amendments to sections 2,30(2)(d), 30(2)(e), 30(2)(1),30(3)(f),31(a), 32(3),35,39 and 45 of the County Govemments Act (Cap. 265) as well as the other new provisions as proposed in the Petition; and
• d) the Council of Govermors,in partnership with the Public Service Commission and other relevant State agencies, develops harmonized policies and proccdures on

leave and abscoce from office ofcoumty govcrmors,deputy govcmors and appoinled members of the county execulnve, und to submit a repon to the Semate within sixmonths ofheadoptson ofthisReport.

Thcreupon, the Connttee adopted the revised Report. having becn proposcd by Sen. Daniel Kitonga Maanzo,EBs.MP and scconded by Sen Andrew Omtatah Okoii,MP.

MIN.NO.847/2026 ANYOTHERBUSINESS

The Conmince delberated on e proposd pubhic hearings and stakcholder cngagemen forums on he Constation of Kcaya (Ameudment) (No.2) Bill,2025 (Senale Bills No. 16 of 2025).and drected the Sccretaniar to prepare a comprchensive schedule for consideralion by the Commintecal tsnextmcetng

MIN.NO.848/2026 ADJOURNMENT

The Chairpcrson adjourned the mecting at twerty five minutes past nine O'clock.The next mccling will be held on Tuesday, 24°Fcbruary,2026 ar 8.00 a.m.

SIGNED:.

J4.02:2026

DATE:

13TH PARLIAMENT|4TH SESSION

MINUTES OF THE 258TH SITTING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON 25THNOVEMBER,2025AT8.00A.M.VIRTUALLYONTHEZOOMONLINE MEETINGPLATFORM

PRESENT

1. Sen.Wakili Hillary Sigei,CBS,MP

• Chairperson (Chairing)

2. Sen. Veronica W. Maina, MP

• Vice-chairperson

3. Sen. (Prof.) Tom Ojienda, SC, MP

-Member

4. Sen.Daniel Kitonga Maanzo,EBS,MP

-Member

5. Sen.AndrewOmtatahOkoiti,MP

• -Member

6. Sen. Crystal Kegehi Asige, MP

-Member

ABSENTWITHAPOLOGY

1. Sen. Karen Njeri Nyamu, MP 2. Sen. Raphael Chimera Mwinzagu, MP

SECRETARIAT

1. Mr. Charles Munyua

-Principal Clerk Assistant II

2. Mr. Boniface Kiambi

-SeniorClerkAssistant(TakingMinutes)

3. Ms. Faith Wangui

• Legal Counsel II

4. Ms. Lilian Waweru

• Legal Counsel II

5. Ms. Angela Bonaya

• Clerk Assistant III

6. Mr. Jackson Matheshe

• Research Officer III

7. Mr. Linet Aseka

• Research Officer III

8. Mr.ZentonWilliams

-Audio Officer

MIN.NO.813/2025 PRELIMINARIES

The meeting was called to order at ten minutes past eight O'clock and opened with a word of Prayer.

MIN.NO.814/2025 ADOPTIONOFTHEAGENDA

The Agenda of the meeting was adopted having been proposed by Sen. (Prof.) Tom Ojienda, SC, MP and seconded by Sen.Andrew Omtatah Okoiti, MP.

• Member

-Member

MIN.NO.815/2025

THEDRAFTREFERENDUMBILL,2025

The Committee resumed its considerationoftheBill fromParts 3 and 4,which address referendum petitions and general provisions. Discussions covered procedures for filing and determining referendum petitions, as well as the conduct, results, and validity of referendums.

During deliberations -

• a) Members raised concerns about potential delays and the need to align the proposed rules with existing legislation. Particular focus was placed on refining provisions related to referendum petitions, including filing procedures, timelines, and the powers of the courts;
• b) The Committee reviewed specific clauses relating to referendum processes and agreed on several modifications, including extending appeal timelines and clarifying the scope of court powers; and

3. It was agreed to extend the period for hearing and determining appeals in the Court of Appeal from30 to60days,deleteClause40,and amendClause42torequire regulations to undergo the normal parliamentary process at the draft stage rather than after publication.

Thereupon,the Committee-

• i) resolved that the proposed amendments be incorporated in the text of the draft Bill; and

2. ii approved the draft Bill, subject to the said amendments, for publication.

MIN.NO.816/2025

PETITION BY HON. ISAIAH MAINA,MCA, CONCERNINGPROPOSEDAMENDMENTSTO THECOUNTY GOVERNMENTSACT(CAP.265)

The Committeewas taken through and considered the draft Report on aPetition by Hon. Isaiah Maina, MCA, concerning proposed amendments to the County Governments Act (Cap. 265).

During deliberations,Members resolved that the Committee recommendation be amended to reflect that the Committee will sponsor a Bill for consideration by Parliament on theproposalsby thePetitioner that the Committee concurred with.

Thereupon, the Committee adopted the Report having been proposed by Sen. Daniel Kitonga Maanzo,EBS, MP and seconded by Sen.Andrew Omtatah Okoiti, MP.

MIN.NO.817/2025

ADJOURNMENT

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting at twenty four minutes past nine O'clock. The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, 26"h November, 2025 at 8.00 am.

SIGNED:.

NN.O02S

DATE:

13TH PARLIAMENT |4TH SESSION

MINUTES OF THE 252ND PSITTINGOFTHESTANDINGCOMMITTEEON JUSTICE,LEGALAFFAIRSANDHUMANRIGHTSHELDONTUESDAY, 11THNOVEMBER,2025AT8:00AMVIRTUALLY ONTHEZOOMONLINE MEETINGPLATFORM

PRESENT

1. Sen. Wakili Hillary Sigei, CBS, MP

• Chairperson (Chairing)

2. Sen.Veronica W. Maina,MP

• Vice-chairperson

3. Sen. (Prof.) Tom Ojienda, SC, MP

• -Member

4. Sen. Daniel Kitonga Maanzo, EBS, MP

-Member

5. Sen.AndrewOmtatah Okoiti,MP

-Member

6. Sen. Crystal Kegehi Asige, MP

-Member

ABSENTWITHAPOLOGY

1. Sen. Karen Njeri Nyamu, MP

-Member

2. Sen. Raphael Chimera Mwinzagu, MP

-Member

SECRETARIAT

1. Mr. Charles Munyua

-Principal Clerk Assistant II

2. Mr. Boniface Kiambi

• Senior Clerk Assistant (Taking Minutes)

3. Ms.Faith Wangui

• Legal Counsel II

4. Ms.Angela Bonaya

• Clerk Assistant III

5. Mr. Linet Aseka

• Research Officer II

6. Mr. Josphat Ngeno

-MediaRelations Officer

7. Mr. Zenton Williams

-Audio Officer

8. Ms. Gloria Anyango

• Intern

MIN.NO.779/2025 PRELIMINARIES

The meeting was called to order at ten minutes past eight O'clock and opened with a word of Prayer.

MIN.NO.780/2025 ADOPTIONOFTHEAGENDA

The Agenda of the meeting was adopted having been proposed by Sen. (Prof.) Tom Ojienda, SC, MP and seconded by Sen.Andrew Omtatah Okoiti, MP.

MIN.NO.781/2025

CONFIRMATIONOFMINUTESOFPREVIOUS SITTINGS

• The Minutes of the 249"h Sitting were confirmed as the true record of the a) proceedings having been proposed by Sen. Veronica W. Maina, MP and seconded by Sen. Daniel Kitonga Maanzo, EBS, MP.
• The Minutes of the 25o"h Sitting were confirmed as the true record of the b proceedings having been proposed by Sen. (Prof.) Tom Ojienda, SC, MP and seconded by Sen.Andrew Omtatah Okoiti, MP.
• The Minutes of the 251s Sitting were confirmed as the true record of the proceedings having been proposed by Sen. (Prof.) Tom Ojienda, SC, MP and seconded by Sen. Daniel Kitonga Maanzo, EBS, MP.

MIN.NO.782/2025 MATTERSARISINGFROMTHEMINUTESOF

PREVIOUSMEETINGS

• a UnderMin.No.766/2025-ProposedRetreatoftheCommittee

The Committee resolved to hold a retreat on 16"h to 18th November, 2025, in Kiambu County, to -

• i) consider the County Governments (State Officers' Removal from Office) Procedure Bill, 2024 (Senate Bills No. 34 of 2024); and

2. ii) consider and adopt Committee reports on the National Assembly amendments to the Election Offences (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 2024 (Senate Bills No. 28 of 2024), and a Petition by Hon. Isaiah Maina, MCA, concerning proposed amendments to the County Governments Act (Cap. 265).

A requestwasmadefor avirtual link tobeprovidedforMemberswho may not.be able to attend the meeting physically.

• (b) Under Min. 773/2025 (b) - Foreign travel by the Committee to Cape Town, RSA
• i) Sen.Daniel Maanzo,EBS, MP informed the Committee that he had since deferred the proposed travel to El Salvador due to security concerns, and would instead travel with the Committee to Cape Town as earlierscheduled.
• ii) Members requested to be provided with a travel brief in good time on the logistical and other arrangements for the visit.

MIN.NO.783/2025

PETITION BY HON.ISAIAH MAINA,MCA, CONCERNINGPROPOSEDAMENDMENTSTO THECOUNTYGOVERNMENTSACT(CAP.265)

The Committee resumed its consideration of the Petition by Hon. Isaiah Maina, MCA, concerning proposed amendments to the County Governments Act (CAP.265).

Following deliberations-

• a) Members rejected a proposal to amend section31(a) of the Act to require county assemblyconcurrencein the Governor'sreassignment of CountyExecutive Committee (CEC) Members, noting that the Governor should retain discretion overappointmentsandreassignments.

2. b Members supported the proposal to amend section 32(3) of the County GovernmentsAct which allowed Governors to assign a CEC portfolioto a Deputy Governor, noting concerns on the vetting procedure, accountability mechanism, and interferencewiththeroleof aDeputy Governor asprincipal assistant to the Governor. Sen.Tom Ojienda,SC, MP dissented and held the view that the provisionallowsDeputyGovernors to.holdadditionalfunctions without interfering with the vetting process or accountability mechanisms; 3. (P Members rejected the proposed amendment to section 39 of the Act, noting as overly prescriptive and impractical the proposal to require Governors and Deputy Governors to appear before committees of county assemblies to answer questions regardingtheirduties; 4. Members rejected the proposed amendments to section 35 of the Act, noting that the current provision already sets adequate qualifications and requirements for the appointment of CEC Members; 5. Members rejected the proposed amendment to section 45 of the Act on the competencies and removalframeworkfor Chief Officers; 6. f On the proposed amendments relating to the County Public Service Boards, Members resolved to --

• i) reject the proposed 14-day timeline for declaring vacancies,and instead propose a 30-day period;

8. ii) require a quorumof atleast threemembersfor boardmeetings; and 9. iii) rejecttheproposalrestrictingboardmembershiptocountyresidentsonly. 10. g Members rejected the proposed new provision on the procedures for handling investigative reports by county assemblies; and

• h) Members rejected the proposed new provision on mandatory annual leave for the Governor and Deputy Governor.

Thereupon, having concluded the consideration of the proposed amendments, the Committee directed that the Secretariat proceeds to prepare the draft Report on the Petition for consideration and adoption.

MIN.NO.785/2025 ADJOURNMENT

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting at twenty seven minutes past nine O'clock. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, 13th November, 2025 at 9.00 am.

Spreee

SIGNED:.

NN. Q025

DATE:.

13TH PARLIAMENT |4TH SESSION

MINUTES OF THE 250TH SITTING OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE,LEGALAFFAIRS AND HUMAN RIGHTS HELD ON WEDNESDAY,5TH NOVEMBER, 2025AT 8:00A.M.VIRTUALLY ON THE ZOOMONLINEMEETINGPLATFORM

PRESENT

1. Sen. Wakili Hillary Sigei, CBS, MP

Chairperson (Chairing)

• 2.

• Sen. Veronica W. Maina, MP

-Vice-chairperson

3. Sen.Andrew Omtatah Okoiti,MP

-Member

4. Sen.Daniel KitongaMaanzo,EBS,MP

-Member

5. Sen. (Prof.) Tom Ojienda, SC, MP

-Member

6. Sen. Crystal Kegehi Asige, MP

-Member

ABSENTWITHAPOLOGY

• 1.Sen. Raphael Chimera Mwinzagu, MP

-Member

• 2.Sen. Karen Njeri Nyamu, MP

-Member

SECRETARIAT

1. Mr.Boniface Kiambi

-Senior Clerk Assistant

2. Ms. Faith Wangui

• Legal Counsel II

3. Ms.Angela Bonaya

• Clerk Assistant IHI (Taking Minutes)

4. Mr. Linet Aseka

• Research Officer III

5. Mr. Josphat Ngeno

-Media Relation Officer III

• 6.

• Mr. Zenton Williams

• Audio Officer

MIN.NO.770/2025

PRELIMINARIES

The meeting was called to order at fifteen minutes past eight O'clock and opened with a word of Prayer.

MIN.NO.771/2025 ADOPTIONOFTHEAGENDA

The Agenda of the meeting was adopted having been proposed by Sen. Andrew Omtatah Okoiti, MP and seconded by Sen. Veronica W. Maina, MP.

MIN.NO.772/2025

PETITIONBYHON.ISAIAHMAINA,MCA, CONCERNINGPROPOSEDAMENDMENTSTO THECOUNTYGOVERNMENTSACT(CAP.265)

The Committee was taken through a matrix of stakeholder submissions on the proposed amendments to the County Governments Act (Cap. 265).

During deliberations --

• i) Members rejected the proposed amendment to section 2 of the Act, which sought to define the term "absence" of Governor, Deputy Governor and CEC Member and and the term"special circumstances"under which the officials must resume work,as the definitions could sufficientlybe determined through the relevant administrativeprocedures and it was unnecessary todefine thesame in statute.

2. ii) On theproposal toamend theAct toprovidefor theestablishmentof auniform organizational structure for counties, the Committee noted that imposing such a uniform structure undermined the autonomy of counties.

• 111) On the proposal to amend section 30(2)(l) to define what constitutes'important formal decisions' requiring gazettement, the Committee noted that the proposed amendment was not viable as the county gazette was yet to be operationalized and the decisiononwhat togazetteshould bepurely administrative.

Due to time constraints,the Committee resolved toresume consideration ofthe matrix .at a subsequent meeting.

MIN:NO.773/2025 ANYOTHERBUSINESS

• (a) Considerationoftheconservatory.ordersanddirectionsissuedinHighCourt ConstitutionalPetitionNo.E234of2025;KatibaInstitute&4Othersvthe AttorneyGeneral&3Others

The Committeeobserved thatthematterhad been considered by theSenateBusiness Committee at its meeting held on Tuesday, 4th November, 2025 and the Directorate of Litigation and Compliance would give a further brief on the way forward in due course.

• b) Foreigntravelby theCommitteetoCapeTown,RSA

The Committee was informed that Sen.Daniel Maanzo,EBS,MPhad made a request to havehis foreign travel allocationbe utilizedforhis official travel toEl Salvador to attend a conference.Having considered therequest,the Committee resolved that the Senator be allocated a sum of Kshs.1,110,000/- towards the visit, in which case he wouldforfeithisopportunitytotravelwiththeCommittee toSouthAfrica.

• C Statusof theCountyGovernmentElection Laws(Amendment)Bill(SenateBills No. 2 of 2024)

Sen. Crystal Asige, MP sought clarification on the status of the Bill in the House since the Committee tabled its Report on the same. The Secretariat committed to follow up on the same and givefeedback at the next meeting.

MIN.NO.774/2025 ADJOURNMENT

The Chairperson adjourned the meeting at thirty minutes past nine O'clock. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, 6"h November, 2025 at 9.00 am.

SIGNED:.

DATE:

13THPARLIAMENT|4THSESSION

MINUTESOFTHE244THSITTINGOFTHESTANDINGCOMMITTEEON 30THSEPTEMBER,2025AT8:00A.M.VIRTUALLYONTHEZOOMONLINE MEETINGPLATFORM

PRESENT

1. Sen.Veronica W.Maina,MP

• Vice-chairperson

2. Sen. (Prof.) Tom Ojienda, SC, MP

-Member (Chairing)

3. Sen.AndrewOmtatahOkoiti,MP

-Member

4. Sen. Karen Njeri Nyamu, MP

• -Member

5. Sen. Crystal Kegehi Asige, MP

-Member

6. Sen. Daniel Kitonga Maanzo,EBS, MP

-Member

ABSENTWITHAPOLOGY

1. Sen. Wakili Hillary Sigei, CBS, MP

• Chairperson

• 2.

• Sen.Raphael Chimera Mwinzagu,MP -Member

SECRETARIAT

1. Mr. Njenga Njuguna

-Director,Governance &AccountabilityCommittees

2. Mr. Charles Munyua

-Principal Clerk Assistant II

3. Mr.BonifaceKiambi

-Senior'ClerkAssistant

4. Ms. Faith Wangui

• Legal Counsel II

5. Ms. Angela Bonaya

-ClerkAssistantIII(TakingMinutes)

6. Mr.JacksonMatheshe

-Research Officer IHI

7. Ms.Linet Aseka

• Research Officer III

8. Mr. Josphat Ngeno

-MediaRelationOfficerIII

9. Mr.Zenton Williams

• Audio Officer

INATTENDANCE

• 1.Hon.Isaiah Maina, MCA

-Petitioner

MIN.NO.739/2025 PRELIMINARIES

The meeting was called to order at twenty-two minutes past eight o'clock and opened withawordofPrayer.

MIN.NO.740/2025 ADOPTIONOFTHEAGENDA

The agenda of the meeting was adopted having been proposed by Sen. Andrew Omtatah Okoiti, MP and seconded by Sen. Daniel Kitonga Maanzo, EBS, MP.

MIN.NO.741/2025

WORKPLANOFTHECOMMITTEEFORTHE REMAINDEROFTHEFOURTHSESSION

The Committee was taken through the draft Work Plan for the remainder of the Fourth Session. During deliberations, Members --

• i) sought clarification on the proposed foreign travel by the Committee, the available budget and the number of Members it could accommodate; and

2. ii underscored the need to not schedule activities during recess so as to allow Members toattend tootherofficial andpersonal commitments.

Thereupon,theCommitteeresolved to deferthematter forsubstantive consideration at its next meeting.

MIN.NO.742/2025

PETITION BY HON.ISAIAH MAINA,MCA, CONCERNINGPROPOSEDAMENDMENTSTO THECOUNTYGOVERNMENTSACT(CAP.265)

The Committee was taken through a Brief on the Petition and later met with the Petitioner who took the Committee through the background, rationale and justification for the proposed amendments to the County Governments Act (Cap. 265).

During deliberations, Members observed that the proposed amendments required careful consideration noting their far-reaching implications on the Constitutional architecturefor devolution aswell as the County GovernmentsAct.

In this regard, the Committee resolved that --

• i the Secretariat prepares a detailed research brief·on the legal and policy implications oftheproposed amendments;and
• 11 subsequently,the Committee holds a retreat to consider thePetition,togetherwith theresearchbrief andsubmissionstobereceivedfromkeystakeholderson the proposed amendments.

MIN.NO.743/2025

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at seventeen minutes past nine O'clock. The next meeting would be held on Wednesday, 1st October, 2025 at 8:00 a.m.

SIGNED:

S00/01

DATE:

Annex 2: Copy of the Petition

XSnSP

Hon. Isaian Maina (MCA) Ol'lessos Ward, P.O.BOX 673-30300, KAPSABET. 30th April 2025.

To

The Clerk of the Senate, Parliament Buildings P.O. Box 41842 - 00100

THESENATE RECEVED

0 7 MAY 2025

DIRECTORCOMMITTEESERVICES (DGAC)

Subiect:PetitiontotheSenate Concerning Amendmentor

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 4th April 2025 concerning the above subject.

GovernmentActNo.17of2012

I appreciate your response to the petition. After reviewing the issues outlined in the letter, which require my compliance for the petition to be deemed admissible, I have redrafted petiticn and integratedthe issuesraised in theletter.

Enclosed is the duly signedpetition foryourfurther action.

Yoursfaithfully

Hon.isaian Main(MCA) Ol'lessos Ward,

Os:os. 25

PETITIONTOTHESENATECONCERNINGAMENDMENTOFCOUNTY GOVERNMENTACTNO.17OF2012

Hon.IsaianMaina(MCA) Ol'lessosWard, P.O.BOX 673-30300. KAPSABET.

TheClerkoftheSenate, ParliamentBuildings P.O.BoX41842-00100 NAIROBI.

RE:PETITION TO THE SENATE CONCERNING AMENDMENTOFCOUNTY GOVERNMENTACTNO.17OF2012

I the undersigned,being a resident Nandi County and a serving Member of the County AssemblyrepresentingOl'lessosWardwishtoPETITiON theParliamentoftheRepublic of Kenya to consider amending the County Government Act INo. 17 of 2012 in order to streamline the functioningof county governments with a specificemphasis on the attainmentoftheOBJECTsofdevolutionsetoutinArticle174andtheobservationof thePRINCIPLESofdevolutionprovidedunderArticle175oftheconstitutionofKenya 2010.From the foregoing allow me to draw the attention of the Senate to the.following:

• 1.THAT,whereas Article 174 of the constitution provides that the objects of devolution are among other things topromotethe democratic andaccountable exercise of power,give powers of self-governance to the people,recognize the right of communities to manage their own affairs,promote socio-economic development, ensure equitable sharing of national and local resources, and to enhancechecks and balances and the separation ofpowers:
• 2.THAT,whereasArticle175 of the constitution stipulates that county governments establishedunder theconstitutionshall bebasedondemocraticprinciplesand the separation of powers;

PETITIONTOTHESENATECONCERNINGAMENDMENTOFCOUNTY GOVERNMENTACTNO.17OF2012

• 3.THAT,whereas Article 10 of the constitution on national values and principles of governance outlines national values and principles ofgovernance as including among others the rule of law, democracy and participation of the people, socia! justice, good governance, and integrity, transparency, and accountability;

4. THAT, whereas Article 232 on the values and principles of public service provides that high standards ofprofessional ethics,efficient,effective,and economicuse of resources,responsive,prompt,effective,impartial,and equitable provision of services,transparency,and provision to the people of timely and accurate information,andthatcompetitionandmeritshall formthebasisofappointments andpromotions;

• 5.THAT,whereasArticie179(1)provides that the executive authority ofthe county isvestedand exercised by the county executive committee;and thatSection 34of the CountyGovernmentActprovides thattheCountyExecutiveCommitteeshall exercise executive authority for thewellbeing of thepeople,while enhancingselfgovernance ofcommunities·in themanagement of developmentprograms and whileensuringequitable sharingofavailableresources throughout thecounty;

6. THAT, whereas Article 179 (2) provides that the county executive committee shall! be composed of the governor, deputy governor and members appointed by the county governorwith the approval of thecounty assembly from amongpersons whoarenotmembersofthecountyassembly; 7. THAT, whereas Article 179 (4) provides that the governor and his/her deputy shall be thechiefexecutive anddeputychiefexecutiveof thecountyrespectively;

PETITIONTOTHESENATECONCERNINGAMENDMENTOFCOUNTY COVERNMENTACTNO.17OF2012

• 8.THAT,whereas Article 179 (6)provides that members of the county executive committeeshallbe accountabletothecountygovernorfor theperformanceof their functions and exercise of theirpowers;
• 9.THAT,whereas Article 183 (1) (a)(b)and (c)of the constitution provides that the functions of the County Executive Committee shall be to implement county legislation,implement national legislation within the county, manage and coordinate thefunctionsof thecounty administrationanddepartments;
• 10.THAT,whereas Article 183(3) provides that the county executive committee shall provide the county assemblywith full and regular reports onmatters relating to thecountyassembly;
• 11.THAT,whereasArticle259(11)provides that if a function orpowerconferredon apersonunder theconstitutionis exercisablebythepersonon theadviceor recommendation,withapproval or consent oninconsultationwithanother advice.recommendation,with approvalor consentor after consultation except where the constitution provides otherwise;

12. THAT, Section 30 (2) (e) of the County Government Act provides that the county governor shall constitute the executive committee portfolio structure to respond to functions and competencies assigned and transferred to each county. The CountyGovernmentActNo.17of2012 alsoprovidesunderSection46thatthe CountyExecutiveCommitteeshall determine theorganization of thecounty and its various departments.

The twopositions are contradictory and requirerealignment and clarity on the meaning ofportfolio structure andorganization of the county envisaged under Section46.TheprovisionofSection30(2)(e)whichgiveseachcountygovernor

PETITIONTOTHESENATECONCERNINGAMENDMENTOFCOUNTY GOVERNMENTACTNO.17OF2012

thepowertoconstitutethe executivecommitteeportfoliostructurebased onthe functions and competencies transferred is unnecessary since the functions and competencies assigned and transferred to all counties areuniform.From the readingofsections30and46andotherenablingprovisionsoftheCounty Government Act,there is no standard template on how county departments shouldbeorganizedundersection46withtheapprovaloftheCountyAssembly thuscontraveningArticle235asreadwithArticle176(1)of theconstitution.To realize these constitutional imperatives1propose that section 30 (2) (e)of the CountyGovernmentAct be deleted and replacedwith a sectionproviding for a standardnational templateforadoptionbyallcounties:

• 13.THAT,Section 30 (2)(l) of the County Government Act provides that the governor shall sign and cause to be published in the county gazette,notice of all importantformal decisionsbythegovernor orbythecounty executivebut neither defines what constitutes an important formal decision nor provide any measures to ensure compliance.lpropose that this.section be amendedto provide for what constitutes important formal decisions,timelines required for gazettement,arequirementthatsuchcommunication(s)shallbearimmutabletime stampsandthatfailuretocomplyshallrenderthedecisionsinvalidandthatall important formal decisions and that such reports shall have to be accompanied by Certified Electronic Funds Transfer Reports and certified bank statements ofall bankaccountsheld bythecountyGovernment and thatfailure to comply shall constitutegroundsforremovalfromofficewithoutthenecessityforavotebythe CountyAssembly;
• 14.THAT,Section30(3)(f)of theActprovides that theCounty Governor shall be accountableforrhemanagementanduseofcountyresourcesbutdoesnotrequire him/her tobe accountableto the oversightbody(CountyAssembly)contrary to

PETTTIONTOTHESENATECONCERNINGAMENDMENTOFCOUNTY GOVERNMENTACTNO.17OF2012

the constitutional requirement for the County Executive Committee chaired by the CountyGovernor toprovidefull and regularreports to theCountyAssembly on matters relating to the countybegging the question of who should speak for the CountyExecutiveCommittee if not theGovernor towhomthemembers nominatedandappointedunderArticle179(2)(b)andSection35oftheActare individually and collectively accountable to?l propose that this sectionbe shallprimarilybe accountabletothepeople through theCountyAssembliesby providing the reports envisaged under article 183 (3) of the constitution and answeringquestions in the assembly along withmember(s)of the County Executive Committee nominated and appointed under Article 179 (2) (b) as the needmaybe;

• 15.THAT, Section 31 (a) of the County Governments Act provides that the county governor may dismiss a county executive committee member without any recourse. Although this provision may be necessary for the smooth running of government and to avoid rendering the County Governor powerless over his/her appointees.I contendthatitgoescountertothespiritof theconstitutionand the law.Notably unlike thenational executive(Article131 (1)(b))where theexecutive powervestsin thepresidentassistedby therestofthecabinet,Article179(1)of theconstitutionprovidesthattheexecutiveauthorityofthecountiesisvested in and exercised by the County Executive Committees meaning that once appointed members of the County Executive Committee take on a solermn duty of steering thecounty and shouldbefree of any arbitrary action.

I propose that the Senate amends this section to limit the power of the County Governor toarbitrarilydismissmembersoftheCountyExecutiveCommittee replacedwith a provision requiring the governor to consult the CountyAssembly wheneversuchaction(s)aredeemednecessary alongwithreasonable thresholds like5o%concurrenceof all membersof theassemblypresent andvoting:

PETITIONTOTHESENATECONCERNINGAMENDMENTOFCOUNTY GOVERNMENTACTNO.17OF2012

• 16.THAT,Section 32(3)of the County Government Act provides that the county as amermber of the county executive committee contrary to the constitutional provision under Article179 (4) that the CountyGovernor and Deputy shall be Chief Executive Officer andDeputyChief ExecutiveOfficerof thecounty respectivelyand further provides underArticle 179(5) thatwhen the county Governor is absent the Deputy shall act as County Governor as captured in Section 32 (2) of the County Government Act which provides that the Deputy GovernorshalldeputizetheCountyGovernorintheexecutionoftheGovernor's functions.ltismycontentionthattheroleofthedeputygovernorisclearly provided under the constitution and the law ana does not thereforerequire any input from thecounty governor.lt alsofollows that thecounty governormaynot donateanypowershe/shedoesnothave!

It is my contention that section 32 (3)of theCountyGovernmentActNo.17of 2012isunconstituticnalsinceitunilaterallypermitstheGovernor toderogatethe status of the Deputy Governor fromi principal assistant to an underling accountabletohim alongwiththeappointedmembersof thecountyexecutive and in any eventthepower to appoint membersto the executiveissharedwith theCountyAssemblyandcanonlybeexercisedwith theapprovaloftheassembly aprocess neither envisaged under the constitution nor under the County Government Act. This raises the question as to what would be the implications of requirements of thePublicAppointments(County AssembliesApproval)Actwhich provides that approval hearingsshallfocusonamongother thingsthecandidate's academic credentials.professional training,and experience?Will the Deputy be subjecttoremovalunderSection40oftheAct?andifso,wouldsucharemoval amounttoanimpeachment?andifnot,whatwouldbetheimplicationsofthe removalofaDeputyGovernorunderthisSection?1proposethatsection32(3)of

PETITIONTOTHESENATECONCERNINGAMENDMENTOFCOUNTY GOVERNMENTACTNO.17OF2012

theCountyGovernmentActNo.17of2012beamended todoawaywiththe power of the Governor to appoint the DeputyGovernor as a member of the County Executive Committee in-charge of a specific portfolio,to include the instances where the county governor can be considered as being absent, and to also include a requirement for the Governor to notify the Deputy in writing wheneverhe/sheisabsentfromofficeandthatsuchacommunicationshallbe sharedwiththeCountyAssemblyandthepublic;

• 17.THAT,Section34of theCountyGovernmentActNo.17of 2012provides that the county executivecommitteeshall exerciseexecutivepowerin accordancewith the constitution and relevant legislation,for the well-being and benefit of the people,whiletaking objects and principlesofdevolution into consideration;1 contend that this Section does not provide any measures for checking on any executiveexcessesorfailuretoadheretotheprinciplesofequityand/orequality especially in the execution of projects within the counties.

Togiveeffect to the spirit of theAct Iproposea sectionbe introduced to create analyze projectidentification,distribution and execution within counties and present reports to each County Assembly two months after the lapse of each fiscal year;

• 18.THAT,Article179(1)of theconstitutionprovides that the executiveauthority of thecountyisvestedinandexercisedbythecountyexecutivecommitteewhose mandateupontakingofficebecomes thatofcarryingoutasolemndutyof ensuringthatthe aspirationscapturedintheobjectsofdevolutionoutlinedunder Article174of theConstitution arerealized.However,theCountyGovernment Act has not provided for a process of sourcing,the criteria for shortlisting and arriving at the final nominees for presentation to the county assembly for vetting and approval in linewith thenational values andthevalues andprinciples of

PETITIONTOTHESENATECONCERNINGAMENDMENTOFCOUNTY GOVERNMENTACTNO.17OF2012

public service captured under Article 10 and 232of the constitution respectively.1 contend that althoughSection 8of thePublicAppointments(County Assemblies) Approval Actof2017providesthattheissuestobeconsideredduringan approval hearing shall include among other things the procedure used to arrive at the nominee,the criteria for shortlisting nominees,no such provisions on the nominationofmemberstotheCountyExecutiveCommitteearecontainedin the CountyGovernmentActtoguidethegovernorwhilesourcingfornominees.

To address these concerns,Ipropose that section 35 of the act be amended to provide for a procedure for sourcing nominees for appointment under Article 179 (2)(b) of the constitution outlining the process of sourcing,criteria for shortlisting andnomination.The amendment shouid aisoprovidefor amandatory requirement for the governor to comply with the conditions for sourcing, shortlisting.and nomination of members and furtherprovide thatany approval by therelevantcountyassemblyof anynomination thatviolates thestipulated procedure for sourcingandnominationshall benull andvoid;

• 19.THAT.Article 179 (2)(b) of the constitution as read with Section 30·(d) of the County Government Act provides for the nomination and appointment of county executivecommitteemembersand thatSection35(3)(d)of the actprovides that a person may be appointed as a member of the county executive committee if that person has knowledge, experience and distinguished career in the fieid relevant totheportfolioofthedepartmenttowhichtheperson is being appoinied. This provision tallies with the requirement in Sections 7 (8) and 8 (c) of the Public Appointments (County Assemblies Approval) Act 2017 which provides thatapproval hearingsshallfocusonamongotherthings thecandidate's academic credentials,professional training,and that the issues for consideration in relationto theapproval of anynominationshall includeamongother things suitabilityfor appointmenthavingregard towhether thenomineescredentiais, abilities,experience and qualities meet the needs of the body to which the

PETITIONTOTHESENATECONCERNINGAMENDMENTOFCOUNTY GOVERNMENTACTNO.17OF2012

provides thatthegovernormayre-assignamemberofthecountyexecutive committee.ltis mycontention that since the appointmentof a member of the countyexecutivecommittee is toa specificportfolio,thegovernor becomes functus officioonce the appointment hasbeen made hencea re-assignment should either be considered as an appointment according to the act or a proviso should be included under section 31 (ba) requiring the governor to seek concurrence with the County Assembly before re-assignment is made setting out the issues including butnotlimited tocompetencies theGovernor tookintoconsideration when selecting themember toserve inaportfolioother than theonevetted for and appointed.1 propose that a thresholdof V2 or2/3 shouldbepeggedon such reassignments;

• 20.THAT,Section 39 of theCounty GovernmentActprovides for accountability of themembersof theCountyExecutiveCommittee asbeing individuallyand collectivelyaccountable to theGovernorfor theexerciseoftheirpowers and performance of their duties andresponsibilities and that a committee of the CountyAssemblymay require amember of the executive'committee toattend or appear before it and answer any questions relating to the members' responsibilities. I contend whereas this Section of the Act may serve some purpose that obligates the County Executive Committee to provide the County Assembly with full andregularreports on mattersrelatingto thecounty.Therefore,whereas county government act provides for members of the county executive member to appear and answer questionbefore the assembly it is silent on who is expected to present thereportsenvisaged under article183(3)of theconstitution asread deputy shall be theChiefExecutiveOfficerand theDeputyChief Executive Officer respectively. Notably section 30 (3) (f) the county government act provides that the county governor shall be accountablefor themanagement and use of county

PETITIONTOTHESENATECONCERNINGAMENDMENTOFCOUNTY GOVERNMENTACTNO.17OF2012

resources.The question is towho and how?I propose that the actbe amended to include asection providing that the chair of thecounty executive committee and inhis/herabsence thedeputyshall be accountable tothepeople andshall provide full and regular reports envisaged under article 183 (3) of the constitution to the countyassemblyandthathe/sheshallattendandanswerquestionsbythe assemblywhencalledupontodoso;

• 21.THAT,Section 45 of the County Covernment Act provides that whenever a vacancy arises in the office of the in the office of the County Chief Officer,the respective Covernor shall within 14days:nominate qualified and experienced recommended by the County PublicService Board and approved by the County Assembly,appoint County Chief Officers. The Act further provides that the Governor may re-assign a Chief Officer and that the office of the Chief Officer shall become vacant in case of death,resignation.and removal from office in accordancewiththetermsofserviceoranyotherwrittenlawapplicabletothe officer.This Section of theAct doesnot specifyif a County Chief Officer is competitively sourced.nominated and appointed toserve in a specificdepartment for example Finance and Planning or to generally to serve in any department.

Ipropose thatif itwas theintention ofparliament that suchappointments are specific to a department, then this section be amended to provide that a reassignmentshouldeitherbeconsidered an appointmentorarequirementfor the Governor toseekthe concurrence of the CountyAssemblysetting out the suitabilityoftheofficertoserveinadepartmentotherthan theonetheywere vettedforbeintroduced;

• 22.THAT,Section 45(6)(c) of the County Government Act provides that a County ChiefOfficermayberemovedfromofficeinaccordancetothetermsofserviceor anyotherwritten law applicableto theofficer.I contendthatthisprovision isnot

PETITIONTOTHESENATECONCERNINGAMENDMENTOFCOUNTY GOVERNMENTACTNO.17OF2012

categorical on the grounds and theprocess through which a ChiefOfficershall be removed from office.Iproposethat this sectionis amended toprovide for the grounds andprocess of removal ofCounty Chief Officers:

• 23.THAT,Section 58 of the County Government Act provides a County Public ServiceBoard shall becomposedof a chair,3-5members and aCertifiedPublic Secretary of goodprofessional standing and who shall be the secretary to the board.Section58Aof theActprovides thatwheneveravacancyarises in a CountyPublicServiceBoard.theGovernor shall nominate andwiththe approval of the County Assembly appoint members of a selection panel for purposes of selecting suitablecandidates forappointment asmembersof theCountyPublic ServiceBoard.I contend that theAct is silentonthetimelinebetween avacancy arising and the formation of thepanel,that theActisnotclearwhether it is the organizations such as the Law Society of Kenya.Institute of Certified Public Accountants,Workers'Associations and PrivateSectorOrganization whoprovide the nominees to the panel or they are handpicked by the Governor and how the chairman sourced.The Act isniot clear on whether theboard shall alwaysbe at themaximum levelof seven(7)or that it can operateat theminimum level of five (5) and if so, can the board operate for without a substantive chair and/or secretary? if so.who steps in during this period?

The fcllowing six(6) amendments toSection58Aof theCountyGovernmentAt No.17of12wouldaddresstheissuesraisedabove

• (a)toprovidefortimelinesbetweenoccurrenceofavacancyinthe position ofchair and/or secretary,the fall of membershiptolessthan three(3)and formation ofapaneland that suchaperiod shall not exceed14days:
• (b)to clarify theprocessof sourcingnominees to thepanel;
• ()toclarifyon theminimumnumberofmemberswithoutwhich theBoard shall notoperateinthiscasetheminimumshall bethree(3) members;

PETITIONTOTHESENATECONCERNINGAMENDMENTOFCOUNTY GOVERNMENTACTNO.17OF2012

• (d)toprovidethat thepositions in theboard shall onlybefilled asprovided intheAct;
• (e)toprovide for express inclusion of minorities,marginalized communities andmembersnotbeingresidents ofthecountyandnotfromthe dominantethniccommunity in therelevantcounty:and,
• (f)Provide for how members of the board can operate on part-time basis.
• 24.THAT, Governors have a penchant to make acting appointments in offices where propose that the county government act be amended to provide for an express requirementthatanyappointmentfallingunderthedescriptionofarticle259(11) of the constitution shall notbemadewithoutfollowingtheproceduresetoutin law and that such appointments shall form groundsforremovalof thegovernor fromoffice;
• 25.THAT,reports emanatingfrom investigativeprocesses by a county assembly acting as awhole or throughits committeesincludingad-hoccommitteeswhichprovide inconvertibleevidenceofculpabilityand/orbreachoftheconstitutionandthelaw shall not be invalidated based onvoting alone without taking into consideration themerits/demeritsofthereport.lpropose that asection becreated toprovide that whenever a county assembly is making decisions on the adoption or otherwise of a report emanating from an investigative process that contain incontrovertibleevidence,theassemblyshallnotvotetorejectthereportwithout considering the evidenceprovided;
• 26.THAT,whereas the county assembliesgo on recess from timeto time torecharge and take time offwhere even committees aretemporally suspended,the county executivemembersespeciallythecountygovernor andhis/herdeputyarenot legally or otherwiserequiredor known to officially to take time off during their tenure ofservice!lpropose thata section be introduced toprovide thatcounty

PETITIONTOTHESENATECONCERNINGAMENDMENTOFCOUNTY GOVERNMENTACTNO.17OF2012

governors, deputies and the appointed members of the county executive committeesshallberequiredtotakeaminimumof20daysand amaximumof30 daysleave everyyear and that during such times the affected officials shall formally handover their duties and shall notperform any official duties except underspecialcircumstances;

• 27.THAT,thispetitionis of National importance and concerns Counties as it seeksto provide for a uniform organizational structure for all of counties,structure communicationfromtheGovernorand/orCountyExecutiveCommitteestothe County Assembly and the public,entrench accountability of the Governor and Deputy Governor, streamline the appointment and/or dismissal of County ExecutiveCommitteeMembers,providefor theremoval of CountyChief Officers and streamline operations of the CountyPublic Service Board;
• 28.THAT, despite attempts I have made to have the matters herein addressed by the .relevantentities,hasnotbeensuccessful;and,
• 29.T-iAT, to the best of my knowledge, none of the issues pointed out above are pending or unresolved in a Court of Law of a constitutional or other legal body.

2 THEREFORE, I your humble petitioner prays that the National Assembly and the Senate amends the followingSections of theCounty GovernmentAct No17 Of 2012:

1. Include in section 2 on interpretation the meaning of the term absent and what it 2. Inciude in section 2 on interpretation special circumstances during which a county governor, deputy governor and/or appointed members of county executive on leaveshall beexpected toresumeworkorperformofficial duties;

PETITIONTOTHESENATECONCERNINGAMENDMENTOFCOUNTY GOVERNMENTACTNO.17OF2012

• contemplated under the subsection will be subject to Article 179(2)(b)and Section35oftheAct:

4. Section 30 by deleting subsection 2(e) and replacing it with a provision for uniformorganizationalstructureforallcounties;

• 5.Section 31 by deleting subsection (ba) and replacing it with a new subsection requiring thegovernor toseektheconcurrenceof theCountyAssemblywhen reassigningamemberof theexecutivecommitteetoaportfolioother than theone he/shewasvettedfor;
• 6.Section 30 (2) (l) to provide for the following among others;
• a)Meaning andscope ofimportantformal decision;
• b) Timelines for gazettement and communication:
• c)Inclusion of immutable time stampsfor all suchimportant decisions;
• d) County expenditure decisions in the form of financial reports be included among importantformaldecisionstobereporteduniderArticle183(3)and shall include ElectronicFundsTransferReports and certified bankstatements heldbytheCounty includingCountyAssembly:
• e)Sanctions on failure to comply with (e) and which may include suspension and/orremovalfromofficewithouttheneedofavoteintheassembly.
• 7.Section32 by deleting subsection3and replacing itwitha new subsection that providesthatthegovernormayonlydelegateinwritinganyofhis/her responsibilitiesbutnot asamemberofthecountyexecutivecommitteeunder Article179(2)(b)orwherethelawprovidesotherwise:

PETITIONTOTHESENATECONCERNINGAMENDMENTOFCOUNTY GOVERNMENTACTNO.17OF2012

8. Section 35 of to provide for a process of sourcing, shortlisting and nominating persons for vetting and appointment tothe office of member of county executive committee; 2. 9.Section39by insertingaprovision insubsection2 toprovide for a requirement of theGovernorand/ortheDeputyGovernor toattendand/orappearbeforea committee of the County Assembly for purposes of answering questions and/or giving evidence on the governor's and deputy governor's duties under Article 179 (4)&(5) and 183 (3) and Sections 30 (3) (f) and Section 39 (1) of the Act or for any otherreason(s)requiredbylaw; 10. Section 45 to clarify if the competencies required for appointment of county chief officers are specific to a department or general in nature and whether they can be then introduce a provision that the governormay re-assign a countychief officer .toadepartmentother thanvetted and appointed towithconcurrenceof the county assembly and to provide for grounds and process of removal of county chiefofficers; 4. 11.Section58Atoprovidefor timelinesbetween theoccurrenceofavacancyor vacancies in theCountyPublicService Board and toprovideclarity of the the office of chair and/or secretary.The amendment should also provide expressly for mandatory inclusion of minorities, marginalized communities, and persons not resident in the county and not being members of the dominant community; 5. 12.A newSection toprovide for procedures to be followed byCountyAssemblies when considering questions prescribed expressly by the constitution,the County GovernmentAct,or anyother lawandwhendealingwithquestionsthathave comeupthroughinvestigative processes of theassembliesespeciallyad-hoc

PETITIONTOTHESENATECONCERNINGAMENDMENTOFCOUNTY GOVERNMENTACTNO.17OF2012

committeesespeciallyininstanceswhereacommitteereturnsaverdictthatthere arereasonablegroundstobelievethatgrossviolationoftheconstitutionandthe law has occurred.TheproposedSection may provide that when dealingwith questions:

• county government act or any other law,a county assembly shall not approve,consent.or adopt a processor decision whose net import deviatesfrom a directprescriptionof the law;
• b)Arising from an investigative process in which a committee of the housereturnsaverdictthat therearereasonablegroundstobelievethat gross violation of the constitution and the lawmay have occurred,then thehouseshall consider themeritsor demeritsin thecommitteefindings besubstantiatedunequivocally
• 13.A newSectionrequiring thegovernor to strictly adheretoArticle259 (11)when exercisingpowers sharedwith the assembly;
• 14.A new section to provide for annual leave·for the county governor,deputy county governor and appointed members of the county executive; and
• 15.Anewsectiontoprovidefor thecreationofaninter-countyinstitutionto : scrutinize project identifyation, distribution and execution within counties among other things.

Hon.lsaianMaina MemberofCountyAssembly Ol'lessosWard

Os0.25

Date......

EMAli :isaiahkaplelach@gmail.com

TEL:072B51042

Annex 3° Submissions received in response to the Petition

TTA

nojtitgg

REPUBLICOFKENYA

COUNTY ASSEMBLIES FORUM (CAF)

FlamingoTowers,5thFloorWing B,Mara Road,Upper HillP.o Box73552-00200 Nairobi Kenya Tel:0701046933 Email:communication@countyassembliesforum.org www.countyassembliesforum.org

CAFMEMORANDUMONPETITIONBYHON.ISAIAHMAINA(MCA, OL'LESSOSWARD,NANDICOUNTY)SEEKINGAMENDMENTSTOTHE COUNTYGOVERNMENTSACT,NO.17OF2012

TO:

Mr. Jeremiah Nyegenye, CBS, Clerk of the Senate, Parliament of Kenya.

FROM:

The County Assemblies

Forum.DATE:

7thOctober2025

1.0INTRODUCTION

COUNTYASSEMBLIESFORUM(CAF)

1. County Assemblies Forum (CAF) is the coordinating body for Kenya's 47 County Assemblies, promoting legislative best practice, intergovernmental coordination, and effective devolution. In keeping with our mandate, CAF submits the following views on the petition by Hon. Isaiah Maina requesting amendments to the County Governments Act (CGA), No. 17 of 2012, with emphasis on strengthening accountability, clarity of executive structures, and alignment to the objects and principles of devolution under Articles 174 and 175 of the Constitution of Kenya.

2.0. BACKGROUND

• 2.1. The petitioner anchors his proposals on Articles 10, 174, 175, 179, 183, 232, and 259(11) of the Constitution and several provisions of the CGA. Key proposals include:
• a)Establishing a uniform organizational structure for county departments (replace s.30(2)(e); clarify s.46).
• introducing immutable time stamps; treating financial reports/EFT/bank statements as important decisions with enforceable sanctions for noncompliance (s.30(2)(l).
• c) Making the Governor and Deputy Governor directly accountable to the County Assembly, including answering questions and tabling the Article 183(3) reports (s.30(3)(f), s.39).
• d) Constraining arbitrary dismissal and reassignment of CEC Members and Chief Officers; requiring Assembly concurrence for re-assignments; clarifying grounds and process for removal (ss.31, 35, 45).
• e)Amending s.32(3) to bar converting the Deputy Governor into a portfolio CEC and to regulate absence/delegation notifications.
• f)Setting clearer rules for County Public Service Boards (timelines, quorum thresholds, inclusivity of minorities and non-resident members) (s.58A).
• g)Creatingan inter-county y institution to scrutinize project

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

• identification/ distribution and report to Assemblies; establishing Assembly SEMBLIES'FORUM(CAF) decision-making safeguards for evidence-based reports from committees.
• h) Introducing annual leave requirements for Governors, Deputies, and CECs;
• 2.2. The petition asserts that current ambiguities and inconsistencies in the County Government Act undermine the foundational values of devolution, including democratic accountability, equity, separation of powers, and public participation.

3.0.GENERALCOMMENTS.

• 3.1. CAF commends Hon. Isaiah Maina for his thoughtful and constitutionally grounded petition. The proposals reflect a deep understanding of the operational gaps in county governance and demonstrate a commitment to strengthening devolution as envisioned inthe2010Constitution.
• 3.2. CAF notes that many of the petitioner's concerns resonate with recurring challenges observed across County Assemblies, including executive overreach, lack of standardizedstructures,weakaccountabilitymechanisms,andinconsistent application ofpublicservicevalues.
• 3.3. However, while the intent of the proposed amendments is. laudable, some proposals may inadvertently conflate constitutional roles,impose impractical administrative burdens, or risk undermining the autonomy of County Assemblies and Governors if not carefully calibrated.
• 3.4. CAF notes that several of the issues raised, such as the need for transparent nomination procedures, clear grounds for removal of public officers, and standardized reporting requirements, .are already partially addressed in existing legislation, including the Public Appointments (County Assemblies Approval) Act, 2017, and the Leadership and Integrity Act. The challenge lies not necessarily in the absence of law, but in enforcement andharmonization
• 3.5. CAF appreciates the opportunity to contribute to this issue and on the basis of the

foregoing state as follows; - appointments being made. dissolved continue to exist but shall stand (10) apply, the selection panel shall (13)Where the provisions of subsection uponthe requisite subsection (9). Chairperson and members dissolved upon the appointment of the (12)The selection panel shall stand under subsections (6) and (7) shall apply. under subsection (9), the provisions of submitted by the Governor for approval or all of the subsequent nominees (11)If the county assembly rejects any

9

the selection panel under subsection

persons shortlisted and forwarded by

fresh nominations from amongst the

and request the Governor to submit

the county assembly to the Governor

five days communicate the decision of

any nominee,the Speaker shall within

(10)Where the county assembly rejects

for appointment.

approved applicants to the Governor days, forward the names of the the county assembly shall, within fiuve approves the nominees, the Speaker of (9)Where the county assembly

reject any of them.

under subsection (7) and approve or

consider each nomination received

of the nominees from the Governor,

twenty one days of receipt of the names

(8)The county assembly shall within

the county assembly for approval.

respectively,and forward the names to

county public service board,

Chairperson and members of the

than five others for appointment as

person,and at least three but not more

under subsection (6), nominate one

days of receipt of the names forwarded

• (7)The Governor shall, within seven

secretary to the Governor.

qualified applicants for the position

for the position of a member and truo

Chairperson, six qualifed applicants

applicants for the position

(d)submit the names of three qualified

and

of

(c)interview the shortlisted applicants;

(b)shortlist the applicants;

Constitution and this Act;

compliance with the provisions of the applications to determine their under subsection (5)-(a)consider the sevena days of receipt of applications

• (6)The selection panel shall woithin

national circulation.

in at least two daily newspapers of public service board by advertisement Chairperson or member of the county for nomination and appointment as applications from persons who qualify seven days of convening, invite

(5)The selection panel shall, within representation.

| appointment. | within five days of his or her | first meeting of the selection panel | (4)The Chairperson shall convene the | nominees are of the same gender. | that not more than tuwo-thirds of the | members to the selection panel, ensure | (3)The Governor shall, in nominating | representing workers. | (e)one person from an association | Accountants of Kenya; and | the Institute of Certified Public | (d)an accountant who is a member of | | Society of Kenya; | Kenya, who is a member of the Law | (c)an Advocate of the High Court of | |------------------------------|----------------------------------|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | basis. | board can operate on a part-time | °Provide for how members of the | community. | | accountability and equitable | county to ensure both local | communities within that | minority and marginalized representatives from | mandating the inclusion of | county, while expressly | registered residents of the | require that all nominees be Amend Section 58Ato | Reccomendations | serve. | members should be | County Public Service Board | under devolution; all | contextual governance | accountability and | the principles of local | county is inconsistent with |

| | | | | | | (2)The selection | | candidates forappointment as members | appoint members to a selection panel | approval of the county assembly, | Governor shall nominate and, with the | county public service board, the (1) Whenever a vacancy arises in a | the Board | and appointment of members of | | | | |---------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------| | members of the dominant ethnic resident in the county and not | (b)one person from the private sector; | communities, and persons not | oficer; (a)a Chairperson, not being a public 0 ° Provide for the express inclusion minorities, marginalized | following persons - | subsection (l) shall consist of the in the Act. board shall only be filled as provided | panel under ° Provide that positions on the | of the county public service board. | yacancy. Board shall not operate in case of a | for the purpose of selecting suitable members (three) below which the | ° Clarify the minimum number of | nominees to the panel. ° Clarify the process for sourcing | to not exceed 14 days. | selection panel, limiting this period | three (3), and the formation of a | " 58A. Procedure for nomination|the fall of membership to less than | position of chair and/or secretary, | Service Board (CPSB) occurrence of a vacancy in the | | persons not resident in the | requirement include | communities is essential, the | and the inclusion of minorities marginalized | protocols. However, while | board operations with clear | the allowance for part-time | operational continuity, and | members to ensure | minimum quorum of three "sdno.18 | minority bodies, civil society, and | (e.g., through professional | nominee sourcing process | formation), atransparent | exceeding 14 days for panel | concerning timelines (not | amendments to Section 58A | CAF supports the proposed |

| Section 58A:County | from office by giving notice, in writing, (6) A county chief officer may resign county chief officer. (5) The governor may re-assign a of delegated power. authorized officer in respect of exercise (4) The county chief officer shall be the as provided under section 46. administration ofa county department executive committee member for the responsible to the respective county (3) A county chief ofcer shall be service shall be an office in the county public (2) The offce of a county chief officer | |-----------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Public|Providefor time limitsbetween the | chief officers | | >Comment | procedures. Public Service Commission Align removal process with Reccomendations |

| approual of the county assembly, | Service Board; and (b) with the | recommended by the County Public | persons competitively sourced and | county chief ofcers from among | nominate qualified and experienced | 45. (1) The governor shall- (a) | officers. | "Appointment county chief | (CCO) | Section 45: County Chief Officers | member's responsibilities." | (b) answer any question relating to the | committee;and | (a) attend or appear before the | committee to- | may require a member of the executive | 2) A committee of the county assembly | responsibilities. | |------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------------|---------------------------|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|---------------------| | ° Provide for the grounds and | county assembly. | only with the concurrence of the | chief officer to a different department | the governor to re-assign a county | ° Introduce a provision allowing | general). | (whether specific to a department or | | competencies required for the | Amend the'section to clarify the | | | | | | | | | | arbitrary dismissals. | current vagueness enables | concurrence since the | require Assembly | technical field should | Reassignment to a different | technical nature. | portfolio-specific, given their | CCO appointments are | CAF supports clarifying that | >Comment | withholding). | censure, budget | for non-compliance (e.g.) | of summons, with penalties | appearance within 14 days | Amend to mandate | Recommendations | accountable. |

| and performance of their duties and | governor in the exercise of their powers | and collectively accountable to the | executive committee are individually | 39. (1) The members of the county | executive committee. | "Accountability of members of the | Assembly Committees | Section 39: Appearance Before | State or public office." | committe shall not hold any other | (4) A member of the county executive | portfolio of the department to which the | five years in the field relevant to the | distinguished career of not less than | (d) has knowledge, experience and a | Chapter Six of the Constitution; and | (c) satisfies the requirements of | from a university recognised in Kenya; | |---------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|----------------------------------|-------------------------------------|------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|----------------------------|-------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|------------------------------------------| | | and Deputy, as its head and | duties | provide evidence regarding their | Assembly to answer questions and | before a committee of the County | Governor to attend and/or appear | require the Governor and/or Deputy | Insert a provision in subsection 2 to | | | | | | | | | | | | deputy, must be personally | | Assembly. The Governor | Committee to report to the | County Executive | Article 183(3) obligates the | supports this | The Forum strongly | >Comment | | | | | | | | | | |

(b) is a holder of at least a first degree

(a) is a Kenyan citizen;

committee if that person -

member of the county executive

(3) A person may be appointed as a

within the county.

(c) community and cultural diversity

and

marginalized groups and communities;

(b) representation of the minorities,

gender;

(a) not more than tuvo thirds of either

account-

committee that do not take into

appointment to the executive

shall not approve nominations for

Constitution. (2) The county assermbly

affrmative action as provided for in the

(b) take into account the principles of

the county; and

nomination.

shortlists prior

input, and publication of

advertisement, stakeholder

| community and cultural diversity of | executive committee reflects the | possible, the composition of the | (a) ensure that to the fullest extent | executive committee- | nominating members of the | 35. (1) The governor shall, when | members. | | | for CEC Members | Section 35:Nomination Process functions referred to in subsection (4). | the deputy governor any of the | (5) The governor shall not delegate to | other written | governor under the Constitution or | dismiss, that are assigned to the | governor, to nominate, appoint or | shall not exercise any powers of the | |---------------------------------------|------------------------------------|------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------|------------------------------------|------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|----------------------------------------| | | | | | | | committee | member of the county executive | and appointment to the office of a | and nominating persons for vetting | process for sourcing, shortlisting, | Amend Section 35 to provide a clear | | | | | | | | | Require public | Recommendations | 10 and 232. | criteria aligns with Articles | shortlisting, and nomination | codifying sourcing, | patronage and weak vetting. | frameworkhasledto | merit- based nomination | absence of a transparent, | The Forum supports, the | >Comment | | | | | | | |

| Constitution, the deputy governor | contemplated in Article 179(5) of the | (4)When acting in offce as | of the county executive committee. | responsibility or portfolio as a member | deputy (3) The governor may assign the governor any other | governor's functions. | for the governor in the execution of the | (2) The deputy governor shall deputize | before assuming office. | as set out in the Schedule to this Act | and subscribe to the oath or affirmation | 32. (1) The deputy governor shall take | governor. | "Functions of the deputy | Governor | Section 32: Role of Deputy | of the office of governor." | necessary for the execution of the duties | |-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|---------------------------|------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------|------------------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------| | | | | | | | | | | | where the law provides otherwise | committee under Article 179 (2)(b) or | a member of the county executive | responsibilities in writing, but not as | the governor may only delegate | with a new subsection clarifying that | Delete subsection 3 and replace it | | | | assistant to the Governor. | in-waiting and principal | Deputy's role as successor- | Section 32(3) and affirm the | Recommendations | as a CEC member. | subordinate to the Governor | Deputy shouldnotbe | under Article 179(4)-(5). The | Deputy yChief Executive | constitutional status as | undermines their | departmental portfolio | Deputy Governor | Section 32(3). Assigning the | CAF fully endorses deleting | Comments | | declared area of competence. |

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 9 | | | | |--------------------------------------|------------------------------|----------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------------|------------------------------|----------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|------------------------------------|------------------------------| | (d) shall have such powers as may be | government; and | decentralized unit of the county | for each department, entityor | (c) may appoint an accounting offcer | as provided under section40; | by a resolution of the county assembly | committee member, if required to do so (b) shall dismiss a county executive | it is appropriate or necessary to do so; | any time,if the governor considers that | county executivecommitteememberat | (a) may, despite section 40, dismiss a | governor- the | "Powwers of the governor. 31. The | Members | Section 31: Reassignment of CEC | | | | | | | | | | within executive discretion | However, minor portfolio | | | the one they were vetted for | committee to a portfolio other than | assigning a member of the executive | County Assembly when re- | governor to seek the concurrence of | with a new subsection requiring the CAF | Delete subsection (ba) and replace it | the need for a vote by the assembly | and/or removal from office without | whichmay include suspension | | falls outside the nominee's | vetting if the new portfolio | reassignment requiring new | Introduce a threshold e.g. | Reccomendations | adjustments should remain | | specialized expertise. | vetting was based on | especially where original | Health to Finance) | different | reassignment to a materially | Assembly concurrence for | supports requiring | >Comment | | | |

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 5 | |---------------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|------------------------------------|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------| | | | | | | | | | | | | | or by the county executive committee." | formal decisions made by the governor | county Gazette, notice of all important | "sign and cause to be published in the | | Amend Section 30(2)(l): DefineA | | comply with these requirements, | Provide for sanctions for failure to | Assembly reports. | the County, including County | and certified bank statements held by | Electronic Funds Transfer Reports | (3) of the constitution) to include | reports (reported under Article 183 | decisions in the form of financial | · Require county expenditure | stamps for all such decisions. | communication. · Inclusion of immutable time | - Timelines for gazettement and | important formal decision. | · The meaning and scope of an | "important formal decisions": | formal decisions"|the following details concerning | Amend subsection 2(l) to provide for | | automatic ouster. | removal proceedings, not | compliance to initiation of requirements but link non- | documentation | Retain reporting and | Recommendation | | 232 (public service values). | (transparency) and Article | with Article 10 | and bank statements aligns certified financial reports, | immutable timestamps, | making. Requiring | gubernatorial decision- | has enabled opacity in | proposal_Lack of definition | CAF strongly supports this | >Comment |

should be adopted

departments.

context-specific

flexibility for counties to add

Public

Health, Agriculture, Lands,

structure

Adopt a minimum core

Reccomendation

counties).

pastoralist VS. urban

unique county needs (e.g

adaptation to accommodate

limited

the template must allow for

configurations. However,

departmental

reduce politicization

national coordination, and

comparability, improve

Service)

(e.g,

Finance,

contextual

with

of

| transferred to each county;" | competencies assignedto pup | respond to the functions and | committee portfolio structure to | "constitute the county executivea | | Government Act:- | Section 30(2) (e) of the County | 179(2)(b) of the Constitution;" | committee in accordance with Article | county assembly, the county executive | "appoint, with the approval of the | and Section35 | appointments to Article 179(2)(b) | a) Subsection 2(d): Subject | Section30 | | | | |----------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|--------------------------------|-------------------------------------|--------------------------------|-----------------------|-------------------------|------------------------|-------------------| | template for portfolio structure | sections and that a standard national | (2)(e)) is contradictory to other | the current provision (Section 30 | all counties. The petitioner contends | uniform organizational structure for | with .a provision establishing a | Delete subsection 2(e) and replace it | | | (2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 35 of the CGA | subsection are subject to Article 179 | appointments mentioned in that | subsection 2 (d) stipulating that | Amend by Insert a provision in | | | | | | would enhance inter-county | structures. Uniformity | executive portfolio | template for county | replace it with anational | to delete Section 30(2)(e) and | CAF supports the proposal | >Comment. | Not necessary | Recommendation | substantive value. This amendment adds no | govern CEC appointments. | and Section 35 already | Redundant. Article 179(2)(b) | A Comment | public justification. | emergencies and require | objectively verifiable | circumstances" to |

| 2i | 2i | 2i | 2i | 2i | 2i | 2i | 2i | 2i | 2i | 2i | 2i | 2i | 2i | 2i | 2i | 2i | 2i | 2i | 2i | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | interruption circumstances" Definition Section 2 (Interpretation) of for "special | | | | duties | resume work or perform official | executivewhoare onleavemust | or appointed members of the county | a county governor, deputy governor, | leave "special circumstances" under which | interpretation the definition of | Amendto Include in the | | | | | | | | | | | | Limit "special | Recommendations. | order) to prevent abuse. | security emergency, or court | (e.g national disaster, | should be narrowly defined | "Special circumstances' | may introduce subjectivity. | While well-intentioned, this | >Comment | Assembly. Deputy Governor and County | written notification to the | include arequirement for | grounds of incapacity) and | constitution of (removal on | consistent with Article 182 of the | Define "absent" in a manner | Recommendations | of the Constitution of Kenya.. | |

| | | | | | | | | | | | | | NO. | |---------------------------------|---------------------------|----------------------------|---------------------------|--------------------------------|---------------------------------|------------------------------|------------------------|---------------------------------|-------------------------------------|-------------------------------------|----------------------------|----------------|--------------------------------| | | | | | | | | | | | a) Definition of "absent" | Section 2 (Interpretation) | | CLAUSE | | | | | | | | | | governor and/or deputy governor | term "absent" as it pertains to the | interpretation the meaning of the | Amend toincludein the | THEPETITIONER | PROPOSEDAMENDMENTBYCAFCOMMENT/ | | succession under Article 179(5) | clarity and ensure smooth | incapacity, would enhance | hospitalization, or legal | county for more than 72 hours, | ,e.g, physical absence from the | gaps. A statutory definition | has ledto inconsistent | constitutes "absence" ofa | Ambiguity around what | CAF supports this proposal. | >Comment | RECCOMENDATION | |

4.0 SUMMARY MATRIX OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

public service shall provide secretariat

p Suuoddn no Buuuou ul(s)

person as a member of the Board, the

selection panel and the Governor

i

diversities of the people of Kenya, and

of hrunuoddo fo hunba ansua ns

principles set out in Articles10,27and

fo suosiud uoanof y adsa(9t) this section, the Governor may extend hup fo poadsat u paioads poad

services to the selection panel.

232 of the Constitution.

| | | | >Comment | CAF supports mandating | deliberation evidentiary | before rejecting investigative | the However, reports. | Assembly must retain final | under discretion voting | and 179(2)(b) Article | separation of powers. | Make it a requirement that a Recommendations | and debate substantive | for recorded justification | with reports rejecting | |------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|------------------------------|--------------------------|----------------------------|----------------------------------|----------------------------|-------------------------------------|------------------------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------|----------------------------------|---------------------------| | not exceeding fourteen days. | (17)Subject to this section, the selection | umo its determine panelmay procedure." | forAdoption of 12.Procedures | Investigative Reports | provide to Section Anew | procedures for County Assemblies | With tofollow when dealing | questions, especially those arising | from investigative processes (such | | thatifan mandate should | a returns report investigative | verdict of gross violation of the | constitution or law,the assembly | shallconsiderthemeritsand |

| evidence-not credible | automatic adoption. | Comments. A | CAF is of the view that the | redundant. is proposal | the JO 259(11) Article | self- is Constitution | However, executing. | may clause reminder | enhance awareness. | guiding a as Include | Act's inthe principle | preamble or interpretation | >Comments. | |-------------------------|------------------------|------------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------|----------------------|-------------------------|-------------------------|------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | na | be can findings whose | Adherence to Article 259(11) | | to governor to strictly adhere | Article 259 (11) of the Constitution | shared when exercising powers | with the assembly | | | | | | Mandatory Annual Leave (20-30 (sAep | | | | 13 | | | | | | | | | | | |

| soddns asnnsaq resodond | wellness and anti-burnout, | however handover must be | rmod prae on poz | vaccums. | Recommendations | recommend We | written requirement | Deputy Governor and public notice. to handover | Limit official acts during | leave to emergencies Comment A | While the proposal is well | risks but intentioned | duplication. The Functions | overlap with Controller of | Auditor-General, Budget, | uo Commission and | Revenue Allocation (CRA). | |--------------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------------------------|---------------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------|--------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|----------------------------------|------------------------------|-----------------------------------|------------------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-----------------------------| | Add new Section to provide for | mandatory annual leave for the | county governor, deputy county | governor, and appointed members | of the county executive, requiring a | a and minimum of 20 days | maximum of 30 days leave yearly | | | | for Institution Inter-County | Project Scrutiny. | Add new Section providing for the | ofaninter-county creation | with a mandate to institution | and analyze project scrutinize | identification, distribution, and | execution within counties | | | | | | | | | | | | 15. | | | | | | | |

Reccomendations body, Instead of a new strengthen the Senate's oversight role or task the CRA with monitoring equity in project distribution.

Yours sincerely, HON. SETH KAMANZA,

CHAIRPERSON.

REPUBLICOFKENYA

OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEY-GENERAL

STATEOEPARAMENTFORJUSTICEHUMANRIGHTSANDCONSTITUTIONALAFFAIRS

OurRef:DQJ/PM/9/7/NOL.1(73)

Date:14thOctober,2025

YourRef:SEN/DGAC/DGCALAHRC/2025/31(b)

SENATR

Clerk's Chgmbers

eax

2 20CT 2025

P.O.Box41842-00100

NAIROBI.

DIRRCORCOMMSTI&SERVICES

RE: PETITIONBYHON.ISAIANMAINAREGARDINGPROPOSEDAMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY GOVERNMENTS ACT(CAP..265).

Referenceismadetoyourletterdated26thSeptember2025,invitingthisofficetorespond throughwritten submissionson the proposed amendmentsof theCountyGovernments Act (Cap. 265).

Having analyzed the Petition, we propose that the Standing Committee on Justice, Legal Affairs,and HumanRightsconsiderthefollowingobservations-

1. THAT, in paragraph 4. page 14, there is the proposal of amendment/deletion of section 30 (2) (e), in ensuring uniform organizational structure.We acknowledge that while all county governments are subject to the same objectives and principles outlined inArticles174 and175of theConstitution,creatinga standard template may be impractical, as every county government has its own unique needs and Constitution,whichrecognises that'everycountyshall decentraliseitsfunctions andtheprovisionofitsservicestotheextentthatitisefficientandpracticableto do so'. 2. THAT, in paragraph 6, page 14, on proposal to amend section 30 (2) (l), in part (e)of theproposal,there is a disconnect onwhat exactly theproposer intends to constitute a failure tocomply,whichwill warrant a sanction.Thisrequires further clarification to ensure comprehension and informed guidance on the matter.

STATEDEPARTMENTOFJUSTICE,HUMANRIGHTSANDCONSTITUTIONALAFFAIRS

CO-OPERATIVEBANKHOUSE,HAILLESELLASIEAVENUEP.O.Box56057-00200,Nairobi-KenyaTEL:Nairobi2224029/2240337

E-MAIL:legal@justice.go.keWEBSITE:www.ustice.go.ke

220CT2025

3. THAT, in paragraph 15, page 16, which proposes the creation of an inter-county institution to scrutinize project identification,distributionand execution within counties.Weacknowledge that this is not necessary as theActestablishes monitoringmechanismswithinacleargovernanceframework and departments, wheredefinedrolesexist at thecountylevel,whichcanbe utilized toidentify communityneeds and enhanceprojectsuccesswithin counties. 2. 4.This,togetherwith the establishmentof theCouncil of Governors,whosefunctions include sharing best practices and encouraging and initiating information sharing on theperformanceof CountyGovernmentswithregard totheexecutionof their functions, is sufficient when principles of good governance as provided for in Article10oftheConstitutionareadhered toand subsequentinstitutionsare adequatelyempoweredandproperlyutilized.

Werespectfullysubmit.

Hon.JudithPareno PRINCIPALSECRETARY

KENYALAWREFORMCOMMISSION

"AVihrantAgency forResponsiveLanvReform"

Telcgrams:"LAWREFORM"NAIROBI Telephone:Nairobi,+254-20-2241186/2241201 Fax:+254-20-2225786 www.info(@klrc.go.ke

Whenreplyingpleasequotc

KLRC/8/86(54)

Ref.No..

andDate

Mr. J.M. Nyegenye, CBS ClerkoftheSenate Clerks Chambers TheSenate Parliament Buildings P.O.Box41842 NAIROBI

150CT2025

KENYALAWREFORMCOMMISSION REINSURANCEPLAZA .3RDFLOOR TAIFAROAD P.O.Box34999-00100 NAIROBI.KENYA

"14iOctober.2025

RE:·

SUBMISSIONOFCOMMENTSONTHEPETITIONBYHON.ISAIANMAINA REGARDINGPROPOSEDAMENDMENTSTOTHECOUNTYGOVERNMENTS ACT (CAP. 265)

The Kenya Law Reform Commission (KLRC), pursuant to its mandate under the KLRC by Hon.Isaian Maina'seeking amendments to the County Governments Act.

Themaingroundsof thePetition are:

• 1.Ambiguity in Executive Authority.
• UnclearrulesondelegationoffunctionstoDeputyGovernors.
• a)Lackof clarity on whenGovernors orDeputyGovernors aredeemed "absent"or under"special circumstances."
• Gaps in defiring and gazetting "important formal decisions."
• 2.WeakAccountabilityFrameworks.
• a)InconsistentreportingbyGovernors andDeputyGovernorstocounty assemblies.
• b )Need to strengthen oversight by requiring regular appearances anid performancereports.
• c)Proposal for a new inter-county body to monitor county projects.
• 3.InconsistenciesinCountyAdministrativeStructures.
• a). Differences in county government organization.
• .b)Petition suggests a uniform national templatefor county structures.

4. Appointments and Human Resource Management.

• a)Concernswiththeprocess of appointingCountyExecutive Committee(CEC) members.
• b)Need forclearerprocedures onremovalofcountyofficers.
• c)Proposal to enhance inclusion of minorities, marginalised groups, and nonresidents in CountyPublicServiceBoards(CPsBs).
• 5.AdministrativeMatters.
• a)Lackof statutoryclarityonactingappointments and theirduration.
• bjProposal tointroduceannual leaveprovisionsforGovernors,Deputy Governors,and CECs.

KLRChas considered thePetition against theprovisions of the Constitution,particularlyArticles 6,10.174-183.189.232,and259andrelatedstatutes,includingthelntergovernmentaiRelations Act,the Public Service (Values and Principles)Act,theLeadership and Integrity Act and the EmployimentAct.Basedontheanalysis,KLRCnotesthatwhilethePetitionraisespertinent issuesonexecutive authority,appointments,accountabilityandreporting,mostofthe challenges identified are attributable to implementation and compliance gaps rather than deficienciesin thelaw itself.TheConstitution and existing statutesalreadyprovidea comprehensiveenoughframework.

K.LRCthereforerecommends:

• 1)That theSenateconsiders accepting targeted amendments thatseek tostrengthen devolutionand accountability,forinstance:
• a)ProposalrequiringGovernorsandDeputyGovernorstopresentbiannual reportstocountyassemblies,and
• executivedecisionsandproperrecordingofdelegations.
• 2)ThatSenaterejectsproposalsthatriskduplicatingexistingstructuresor undermining county autonomy,including:
• a)Defining"absence/specialcircumistances"instatute.
• b)Imposing uniform county structures for all counties.
• C Establishing a new inter-county oversightbody.
• d)Additional procedures for CEC appointments or statutory leave provisions forGovernors,Deputiesand CECs.
• 3) That Senate considers redirecting certain proposals to policy or administrative action and county assemblyStandingOrders.

In conclusion, KLRC advises that rather than piecemeal amendments to the County Governments Act, the proposals contained in the Petition be considered under the existing integrated reform frameworks including the Kenya Devolution SupportProgramme ll (KDsP) and the proposed National Policy on Devolution (2025).

Thefullmemorandumisattached.

Wethankyouforcontinuedsupport andcollaboration.

PeterMusyimi,HsC Ag.SECRETARY/CEO

Encl.

WestlandsDeltaHouse2ndFloor,WaiyakiWay. P.O.B0X40401-00100, Nairobi.

Our Ref: COG/6/12 Vol.14 (16)

15th October2025

Jeremiah Nyegenye,BS TheClerkoftheSenate Parliament Buildings Nairobi

Dear Clerk,

COMMENTS\_.ONTHE\_PETITIONBY\_HON.ISAIAHMAINAREGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS\_TO.THECOUNTYGOVERNMENTSACT,CAP.265

Greetings.

We refer to a letter from the Senate Ref. No. SEN/DGAC/DGC/JLAHRC/2025/31 (d) dated 22nd August2o25invitingtheCouncil to submit itscommentson thePetition by Hon.Isaiah Maina, theMember ofCounty.Assemblyfor OllessosWard,NarokCountyregardingproposed amendmentstotheCountyGovernmentsAct,Cap265.

TheCouncilhasreviewedthePetitionandherebyforwardsitscomments,attachedherewith, foryourconsideration.

Please accept the assurance of our highest esteem andconsideration.

Yours sincerely,

Mary Mwiti,EBS ChiefExecutiveOfficer

Copy:All ExcellencyGovernors

All CountyAttorneys

Tel:(020)2403314,2403313

E-mail: info@cog.go.ke

48Covornmonts1Nation

GOVERNMENTS ACT, CAP 265

O

THESENATESTANDINGCOMMITTEEONJUSTICE,LEGALAFFAIRSANDHUMANRIGHTS

FROM

THECOUNCILOFGOVERNORS

The Council of Governors (The Council),

In recognition of Article 1(4) of the Constitution of Kenya, that sovereign power of the people is exercised at the national level and the county level;

Aware of the need for coordination and consultation between the National Government and County Governments to ensure that

A.SPECIFICCOMMENTS;

| COUNCILRECOMMENDATION | The Council is agreeable to this but notes that | there is no similar provision at the national level | as this is usually administratively managed | deputy between the president and the | president. | We oppose this as Governors and Deputy | Subject to the terms of office for public officers. | Their proceeding on leave and when to resume ae re e s s | | |-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|--------------------------|-------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------| | PROVISION IN THE PRINCIPALACT | No definition of the term‘absent'is provided. | | | | | circumstances' is provided. | | | | | PROPOSALIN THE PETITION | Section 2-Interpretation | | | deputy governor. | Section 2-Interpretation | Includedefinitionof‘specialcircumstances' | | | perform official duties. |

| This is not necessary as it is already provided in | the Constitution and Section 35 (2) of the Principal Act. | proposal by citing a contradiction between () () Principal Act. We are of the view that there is no contradictionbetween the two provisions. Section 30 (2) (e) provides the Governor's | |------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | (2) Subject to the Constitution, the | (d) appoint, with the approval of the county assembly, the county executive committee in accordance with Article (2) Subject to the Constitution, the (e) constitute the county executive 179(2)(b) of the Constitution; Governor shall- Governor shall-—. 30. | to structure portfolio committee | | county Governor | underthe subsection will be subject to Article 179 (2) (b) and e ym ai ueiai pe () z uasans aaa contemplated Section 35 of the Act; county Governor appointments all counties. | |

| We oppose this proposal and note that the | and it would provide a platform for effective disclosure of county-specific decisions. We also | note that incorporating these proposals will be | what determining as over-prescriptive | decisions to gazette can be an administrative | Further, we note that all citizens can access decision in the counties. | information held by the State, which includes | | Moreover, e d Constitution. ofthe Article35 | | County Assembly. | In light of the foregoing, we do not require to provide for any sanctions for non-compliance. | We oppose this proposal as CECMs are state | officers under Article 26o of the Constitution | e e ass o | a a delivery. Further, there is no corresponding | |---------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|--------------------------------------------------------| | 30. | (2) Subject to the Constitution, the Governor shall- | (l)sign and cause to be published in the county Gazette, notice of all important | madebythe decisions formal | Governor or by the county executive | committee. | | | | | | | The Governor- 3 | naxa Kuno e uisse-an eu (ea) | committeemember; | | | county Governor | Suowe loy apinod on () (z) oe uonas puaw others: | ey yuodi yo adoss pe n (e) decision; | and gazettement for communication; (b) Timelines | (c) Inclusion of immutable time stamps for all | such important decisions; | (d) County expenditure decisions in the form | of financial reports be included as formal | decisions to be reported under Article 183 | Funds bank (3) and shall include Electronic certified and Reports Transfer | Keu pey Aiduion on Buey uo suooues (a) the County Assembly; | inciude suspension and/or removai from office without the need of a vote in the assembly. | ym h Supedai pue pue (eg) uopsasns luafad Section 31-Powers of the Governor | a new subsection requiring the governor to seek the concurrence of the CountyAssembly whenre- | | he/she was vetted for. |

| the Constitutional parallel between the Governor- governance structures. The Principal Act as is affords each delegate needs, to the Deputy President via Executive Orders at nou um u Ansn si loaao Kndaa qualifications and appointment requirements for CECMs as they are state officers. Providing for sourcing, shortlisting and nomination will dueto cabinet secretaries at the national level. county respective CountyExecutive Orders. Presidentrelationshipinour to flexibility uo based be over prescriptive. thenationallevel. the responsibilities Governor | |-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | (3) The Governor may assign the other when nominating members of the executive (a)ensure that to the fullest extent ofthe the community and cultural diversity of of thecounty executivecommittee. committeereflects thecomposition any shall, Governor Governor committee- possible, executive deputy (1)The 32. | | ofhis/her Section 35- Appointment of county executive Section 32-Functions of the deputy Governor any where the law provides otherwise; writing to theoffice ofCECM. delegate members only |

(b)take into account the principles of affirmative action as provided for in

shallnot totheexecutivecommitteethat do (a)not more than two thirds of either (b)representation of the minorities, nwon pue sdno aeurem (2)The county assembly not take into account-- within the county. gender; and

P se pauodde aq Kew uos.ad y (e) member of the county executive

(b)is a holder of at least a first degree from a university recognised in Kenya; fo (d)has knowledge, experience and a distinguished career of not less than five years in the field relevant to the Chapter Six of the Constitution;and requirements the (c)satisfies

committee if that person-

(a)is a Kenyan citizen;

the Constitution.

| | | | allowsforthe Governor or Deputy Governor,as | county the before | | | | | | | by the County Assembly at appointment, may as aa ana pais aa | | delivery. Moreover, there is no corresponding departments at the national level. | |-----------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|-----------------------|-----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | portfolioof thedepartmenttowhich the person is being appointed. | (4) A member of the county executive | State orpublicoffice. | executivecommittee | county executive committee are individually the members (1)The | and collectively accountable to the a | Governorintheexerciseoftheir | county assemblymayrequire a memberof the the duties and responsibilities. of committee (2)A | the before executivecommitteeto- (a)attend or appear | (b)answer any question relating to the committee; and | (1)Whenever avacancy arises in the member's responsibilities. | office of a county chief officer, the within shall | Governor respective | (a)nominate qualified and experienced county chief officers from among fourteen days- | | | | | executivecommittee | requirement of the Governor and/or the Deputy appearbefore and Governortoattend | Committee of the County Assembly for purposes | | () pe () () ei an s i and Sections 30 (3)(f)and Section 39 (1) of the Act | | | Section 45-Appointment of county chief officers | required for competencies Clarifythat the | | re-assignmentbe that assigned. Require |

removed from office in accordance with the applicable to the officer. This is sufficient and a maybe ay ot pasoddo se 'suoneinsai u! papioid forremovalthereof Principal Act. procedure

recommended by the County Public

(b)with the approval of the county

chief

(2)The office of a county chief officer shall be an office in the county public

(3)A county chief officer shall be responsible to the respective county executivecommitteememberforthe administration ofa county department

(4)The county chief officer shall be the

authorized officer in respect of the

(5)The Governor may re-assign a

:county chief

officer shall become vacant if the

writing u! accordancewiththetermsofservice office addressed to theGovernor;or notice from (c)isremoved by (b)resigns

county

as provided under section 46.

office'of the

appoint

county chief officer.

Service Board;and

assembly,

officer--·

officers.

service.

(6)The

(a)dies;

of ccos.

or any other written law applicable to the officer.

58A

Section 58A- Procedure for nomination and having timelines for declaration of a vacancy in board, the service county public Providefortimelinesbetweentheoccurrencesof the CPSB.

Governor shall nominate and,with the

vacancies in the County Public Service Board assembly,

(CPSB) and provide thresholds below which the

approvalofthecounty ans suaies go asoind aua jol se appointment for candidates in the office of chair or secretary. Provide also for inclusive representation in the membership.

members of the county public service board.

under

panel

selection

(2)The following persons--

(a)a Chairperson, not being a public officer;

(b)one person from the private sector;

(c)an Advocate·of the High Court of Kenya, who is a member of the Law Society of Kenya;

(d)an accountantwhoisa member of Public ofCertified Institute the and(e)one Accountants ofKenya;

association

an

from

person representing workers.

| We note that the Constitution ought to be read | together with Acts of Parliament that state who the Governor needs to consult in making his/herdecisions and hence,thereis no need to restate this in thePrincipal Act. | This is an administrative arrangement as these arestateofficershencethereisnoneedto provide this in the Principal Act. | st p se o e including oversightof project execution is overseen by the county planning and county approval necessaryas identification, | |--------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | N/A | | | | | e a s sad axa (l a n | A new section to provide for annual leave for the |N/A members of the county executive. with the Assembly. | identification, distribution and execution within counties among other things. | A new section to provide for the creation of an N/A |

B.CONCLUSION;

The Council requests the Committee to consider our proposals favourably.

RE:

PETITIONBYHON.ISAIANMAINAREGARDINGPROPOSEDAMENDMENTSTOTHE COUNTYGOVERNMENTSACT(CAP.265)

1.0INTRODUCTION

The Kenya Law Reform Commission (KLRC) is established under the Kenya Law Reform Commission Act(Cap.3) and ismandatedtokeep underreviewall thelawsofKenya toensure thattheyconform to theletter and spirit of theConstitution,topromote access tojustice and to adviseonthereform and systematicdevelopmentof the law,at national andcountygovernment levels.

Pursuant to this mandate,the Senate invited KLRC to provide its advisory opinion on a Petition presented byHon.Isaian Maina,Memberof the County.Assembly for Ol'LessosWard,Nandi County. The Petition proposes amendments to the County Governments Act (Cap.265)with a view to accountabilityobligations.

This memorandum offers a detailed legal,policy and institutional analysis of theproposals in the Petition,arranged thematicallyforcoherence andguidedbythe constitutional principles of devolution, separationofpowers,goodgovernanceandpublicaccountability.

2.OBACKGROUNDANDCONTEXT

TheCountyGovernmentsActwasenactedtogiveeffecttoChapterElevenoftheConstitution, establishing the structures,powers and functions of county governments.Over the past decade,its implementation has revealed several administrative and interpretive challenges. These include ambiguityin theexerciseofexecutiveauthority.inconsistenciesincountyadministrativestructures, limited clarity in accountabilityrelationships and divergence in appointment andreportingpractices acrosscounties.

on interpretation,executive conduct,appointments,inclusivity.reporting and administrative procedures.In assessing these proposals,KLRC considered the provisions of the Constitution— particularly Articles 6, 10,174-183. 189、232, and 259—and related statutes.including the Intergovernmental Relations Act, the PublicService (Values and Principles) Act.the Leadership and IntegrityAct and theEmploymentAct.

3.0CONSTITUTIONALFRAMEWORK

The Constitution anchors devolution on the principles of distinctness, interdependence and cooperationbetween thetwolevels of government underArticle 6(2).Article174outlines theobjects of devolution,includingpromoting democratic and accountable exercise of power,enhancing selfgovernance and ensuring equitable sharing of resources.Articles 179 and 183 establish the county executivesystemanditsaccountabilityobligations,whileArticle185vestslegislativeandoversight authorityincountyassemblies.

Theseconstitutionalprovisionssettheboundarieswithinwhich any legislative amendmentto the County Governments Act must operate.They require that any change strengthens—not dilutes—the clarityof executive authority,legislativeoversight andpublic accountability.

4.0ANALYSISOFTHEPETITIONER'SPROPOSALS

4.1InterpretationandFoundationalProvisions

ThePetitionerproposesthatsection2oftheActbeamended toincludedefinitionsoftheterms "absence" and "special circumstances."particularly in relation to the Governor or Deputy Governor proceedingonleave.Whiletheseproposals aremotivatedbyadesiretoensurecontinuityand transparency ingovernance,theyraisefundamentalissues about the distinctionbetweenconstitutional andadministrativematters.

Article 182 of the Constitution already provides for temporary incapacity and vacancy in the office of the Governor.Defining"absence"within the Act could unintentionally expand or narrow describe the administrativeprocedurefor notifying the county assembly when theGovernor orDeputy Governor is temporarily away,rather than through statutory amendment.Similarly,the proposal to define"special circumstances" for leave of the Governor or Deputy Governor touches on matters of administrative convenience,notlegislative principle.Stateofficers,unlike publicofficers,donot have leave entitlementsprescribed in law,but operate onthebasis of accountability and duty.

KLRCthereforefindsthatboth matters arebestaddressed through administrativecircularsorhuman resourceguidelines developedcollaborativelybythePublicServiceCommission(PsC),theSalariesand RemunerationCommission(SRC)、and the Council of Governors(CoG),pursuant to theirrespective mandatesunderArticles230and234oftheConstitutionandtheIntergovernmentalRelationsAct, ratherthanbyamendingtheprincipal legislation.

4.2ExecutiveAuthorityandAccountability

A series ofproposalsrelate to thescope and exerciseof executive authority undersection30 tosection all counties,definingwhat constitutes an"important formal decision."clarifying accountability of the Covernor andDeputyGovernor tothe assembly andprescribinghowfunctions are delegated tothe DeputyGovernor.

Article 179(1)of theConstitutionvests executive authority of thecounty in the county executive committee,whichiscollectivelyaccountabletothecountyassemblyunderArticle183(1).Thiscollective responsibilitymeansthatwhiletheGovernorleadstheexecutive.hisorherauthorityisexercisedwithin asystem of checks bothinternal (among the CEC members)and external(through the county assembly).

The proposed linkbetweensection30(2)(d) and section35is sound inpurpose,aiming to ensure consistencybetweentheConstitutionandstatute.However,theprovisionalreadyreadsharmoniously with Article179(2)(b).No statutory amendment is required: instead.interpretive guidance could be membersmustadheretoboththeConstitutionandtheAct.

organisation raises constitutional and policy concerns.Article 6(2) establishes counties as distinct governments with discretion to determine their internal structures. lmposing uniformity through law wouldcontravenethatprinciple.ThemoreconstitutionallyfaithfulapproachistodevelopaModel CountyOrganisationalFramework throughthePublicServiceCommission(PsC),the Intergovernmental Relations Technical Committee (IGRTC) and the CoG,for adoption by counties throughadministrativeresolutionsratherthanlegislation.

Similarly,the call to define"important formal decisions"and introduce gazettement timelines under perspective,theabsenceofclearcriteriaforwhatconstitutesaformaldecisionsometimesleads to selectivegazettement,affectinglegality andaudittrails.KLRCsupportsdefiningsuchdecisionsthrough subsidiarylegislation-for example,requiring that allexecutive orders,appointments,delegations and strategicplansbegazettedwithinfourteen days of approval.Thisapproachmaintainsflexibilitywhile reinforcingtransparency.

report tothecounty assemblyonresourcemanagement alignswell withArticle183(3),whichobliges institutionalise accountabilitycycles and createpredictabilityfor assembliestoschedule such sessions alongsidebudgetanddevelopmentreviews.

The issue that has generated the most interest is section 32(3),which concerns the delegation of to theDeputy Governor,inwriting,anyof thefunctions of the officeof Governor.Thisisdistinct from Article 182(2),which provides for the Deputy Governor to act as Governor during the Governor's assistanceanddelegatedtotheirDeputies substantiveresponsibilityoverspecific sectorsor departments—such as finance.intergovernmentalrelations,or special programmes.This evolving intoadefactoCountyExecutiveCommitteememberand,byextension,whethersuchdelegated functionsrendertheDeputyGovernorsusceptibletocensuremotionsundersection40of theAct.

KLRCnotes thattheDeputyGovernor'sconstitutionalpositionisthatofaprincipal assistant,akin to theroleof theDeputyPresidentunderArticle147of theConstitution.Delegationdoesnotconstitute Governor remains accountablefor all delegated acts and theDeputy Governor can onlyberemoved thatsuchdelegationdoesnotconferindependentportfoliostatusnoraltertheDeputyGovernor's substantiverole.Thisharmonisescountypracticewithnationalprecedent,where theDeputyPresident maycoordinateorchairfunctionsbutdoesnotholdaministerialdocket.

Finally,theproposaltointroduceaninter-countyinstitutionundersection34toscrutiniseandreport on countyprojects is unnecessary and constitutionallymisaligned.The CountyGovernments Act alreadyestablishesanelaborateplanningandreportingframeworkthroughCountyIntegrated DevelopmentPlans(CiDPs),Annual Development Plans(ADPs) and performance management systems that provide for monitoring,evaluation,and reporting on development projects.Further,the Public AuditAct,2015entruststheoversightandauditoftheuseofpublicresourcestotheOfficeofthe Auditor-General,while legislative oversight is exercised by the County Assemblies and,at the intergovernmental level,bytheSenateunderArticle96(3)oftheConstitution.

Atthenationallevel,theIntergovernmentalRelationsAct,2012andthestructuresestablishedunderit —notablytheCouncilofGovernors(CoG)andtheIntergovernmental RelationsTechnicalCommittee programmes.Creatinganotherinstitutionatcountyleveltoperformsimilarfunctionswouldduplicate existingmandates,distortaccountability,andintroduceanadditional layerofbureaucracy.

4.3Appointments,HumanResourceManagementandInclusion

sections35,45,49and58A.

Section35alreadyprescribesamerit-based,transparentandrepresentativeprocessfortheappointment ofCountyExecutiveCommitteemembers,inconformitywithArticles 27(8)and 232of the Constitution.Theprovisionalsosafeguardsexecutiveindependencebyleaving thediscretion to nominateCECmembers to the Governor,subjecttovetting and approvalby the county assembly undersection35(2).This arrangement reflectstheconstitutional design inwhich theGovernor,as the head of the county executive,retains theprerogative to constitute thecabinet while the assembly exercisesanoversightandconfirmatoryroletoensurethatnomineesmeettheprescribedintegrity, competenceanddiversityrequirements.

Thepetitioner'sproposaltointroduce additional statutoryorregulatoryprocedures for sourcing, shortlistingandnominationwould thereforeundulyfetterthe executivefunction and risk transforming the appointmentprocess intoan administrativerather than apolitical and constitutionalexercise. Questionsofqualification,suitabilityandrepresentativenessarealreadyaddressedcomprehensively during the.vetting process, as guided by.the Public Appointments (County Assemblies Approval) Act.

vettingcapacity and adherence tothevaluesinArticles10 and232offers a moreconstitutionally sound approachthanexpandingproceduralprescriptioninlaw

unnecessary.These sections already empower CountyPublicService Boards to make disciplinary arewell covered under thePublicService CommissionRegulationsanid thePublicServiceValuesand Principles)Act.TheCommission thereforefindsnolegislativegaprequiring amendment.

A moresubstantive andprogressive issue arisesfrom theproposed amendment tosection58A,which seeks torequire theinclusion of minorities,marginalised communities,andnon-residentsinCounty PublicServiceBoards(CPsBs).WhiletheintentionaccordswithArticle56andArticle232(1)(h)ofthe Constitution on inclusivenessandrepresentationofdiversity.KLRCnotes thatthese obligations are already expressly embedded in the existing law.The persistent challenge,as demonstrated by the annualdiversityand inclusionauditsundertakenby thePublicServiceCommission(PsC)andthe National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCiC), lies not in legislative deficiency but in weak complianceandenforcementatcountylevel.

Inview ofthis,the focus ofreform should shift from further restating constitutional values to made under section59 of the County Governments Act,require each CountyPublicServiceBoard to submit annual diversityimplementationreports.Countiesthatfail tomeet inclusionthresholdsshould besubjecttoadministrativesanctions—suchassuspensionofrecruitmentapprovalsor recommendationforremedial measures throughtheGovernorandCountyAssembly.

Additionally,theCommission on Revenue Allocation(CRA)could be directed toincorporate adherencetodiversityandinclusionstandardsasaperformanceindicatorinthedevelopmentofthe forcountiestocomplywithconstitutional inclusionrequirements.

regulatoryenforcement,audit-basedsanctions,andfiscalincentivestocompelCountyPublicService Boardsto implement theinclusionobligations already established inlaw.

4.4LegislativeOversight,ReportingandProcedural Safeguards

ThePetitionalsoproposesthatsecion39beamendedtorequiretheGovernororDeputyGovernor toappearbeforethecountyassemblyto answerquestions andprovide evidenceon their duties. AlthoughArticle183(3) and section39already envisageregular reporting.theproposed amendment From a policy standpoint,this measure aligns with the spirit of Article 10 and 185(3). enhancing transparencywithout infringing on executive autonomy.TheCommission supports a clarificatory amendmentrequiringGovernors anddeputiestopresent at leastbiannualperformancereportsto the assemblyandtoappearwhensummonedforclarifications.

The petitioner further suggests that assemblies should not vote orrejectreports without considering evidence.While this proposal underscores the importance of evidence-based oversight,it touches on the internal workings of thelegislature.Article185(3) and theCountyAssemblies Powers and Privileges Act,2017protectassemblies'proceduralautonomy.Thismatteristhereforebestaddressedthrough encouragingcounty assembliestoacoptevidence-basedreviewstandardsintheirrulesofprocedure.

4.5AdministrativeandMiscellaneousProvisions

ThePetition'sfinal set ofproposals concern acting appointments and annual leave.Paragraph 24 proposes to amend theAct to ensure that acting appointments conform to Article 259(11) of the Constitution.The Constitution already limits such appointments to six months and the provision is selfexecuting.Theproblem lies not in legislative deficiencybut in compliance.KLRC advises that the PsC obligationstoensureenforcement.

andcounty executives.While theintention maybe toregularise administrativecontinuity、such obligations.This issueis thereforepurely administrative andshould behandled through guidelines issuedby specifyingprocedurefor temporary delegation duringabsence.

ThePetition,thoughpresented asaseriesofproposed statutory amendments,reflects deeperstructural to legislative deficiency,but to gaps in administrative guidance,institutional coordination and compliance oversightwithin the devolved system.Many of the challengesraised are theresult of unevenimplementationof existinglawsrather thanthe absenceofenablinglegislation.

AmoreeffectiveandsustainableresponseisthereforetolocatethesematterswithintheongoingKenya DevolutionSupportProgramme ll(KDsPll)andtheemergingNationalPolicyonDevolution(2025). Bothinstrumentsaimtoconsolidatethegainsofdevolution,clarifyintergovernrmentalrelationships by thePetitioninthesebroaderpolicyprocesseswouldensurethatanyreformundertakenissystemic, coherentand aligned tonationaldevelopmentandgovernanceframeworks,rather thanisolated statutoryamendment.

TheCommissionfurtherobservesthatmostoftheissuesidentified-particularlythoserelatingto appointments,reporting and inter-county coordination-require strengthened intergovernmental collaboration rather than amendment of theprincipal Act.The Intergovernmental RelationsTechnical Committee(IGRTC),theCouncilofGovernors(CoG)and thePublicServiceCommission(PsC)already have established mandates under theIntergovernmental RelationsAct and the County Governments Act to issueguidelines,monitor compliance andbuild capacity across counties.Reinforcing theirroles throughclearpolicyinstruments,jointframeworksandperiodiccomplianceauditswouldachieve Inaddition,KLRCnotesthattheNational Treasury,theCommissiononRevenueAllocation(CRA)and the Office of the Auditor-General(OAG)are central to ensuring fiscal discipline and performance accountabilitywithinthedevolvedsystem.Strengtheninglinkagesbetweentheseinstitutionsandthe oversightfunctionsoftheSenateandCountyAssemblieswouldpromoteverticalaccountability ensuringthatexecutivediscretionatthecountylevelremainsbalancedbyfinancialandperformance oversightatbothnationalandcouniylevels.

The Commission also underscores the importance of capacity-building and civic literacy among county institutions.Manygovernancechaliengesarisefromlimitedunderstandingofconstitutionalrolesand statutorymandates,particularly intheapplication ofArticles 10,183,and232oftheConstitution. Embeddingcontinuous induction,peer learningandpolicy support mechanisms through KLRC,the CoG,IGRTCandtheStateDepartmentforDevolutionwould addressthesesystemicweaknessesmore effectivelythanfurtheramendmenioftheCountyGovernmentsAct.

Finally.KLRCstresses that sustainable improvement in countygovernance demandsa policy-lawpractice alignment framework.Policies shouldfirst articulategovernanceprinciples:legislation should translate theseprinciples intoenforceable standards;and administrativepractice should ensure complianceandfeedbackforfurtherreform.Thisintegratedapproach—anchored intheNational blueprints-offersthemostcoherentpathwayforrealisingaccountable,responsiveandperformanceorientedcountygovernments.

6.0CONCLUSION

TheKenyaLawReformCommissionacknowledgesthePetitionbyHon.IsaianMainaasaconstructive raisespertinentquestionsaboutthebalancebetweenexecutiveauthority,accountabilityand intergovernmental coherence within counties.However,as this analysis demonstrates,themajority of the issues identified are rootedless in legislative gaps than in the absence of coherent policy direction. administrativeguidanceandenforcementmechanisms.

TheCommissionthereforeadvisesthatmostoftheproposalsarebestaddressedwithinthebroader DevolutionPolicy and LawReviewprocess under theKenya DevolutionSupportProgramme ll and theforthcomingNationalPolicyonDevolution(2025),ratherthanthroughpiecemealamendmentof theCountyGovernmentsAct.Embeddingthesematterswithinanintegratedreformframeworkwill

KLRCfurtherrecommends that theSenate,workingwith the IntergovernmentalRelationsTechnical Committee(IGRTC),theCouncil of Governors(CoG),thePublicServiceCommission(PsC)andother intergovernmentalpolicyalignmenttoenhanceaccountabilityandservicedeliveryinthecounties.

InkeepingwithitsstatutorymandateunderSection6oftheKenyaLawReformCommissionAct,the Commission remains available to provide the Senate with any further technical assistance,drafting support or specialisedreview thatmayberequired during theHouse'sconsideration of thePetition. KLRC therefore welcomes specificinstructions from the Senate on any aspect of the proposed amendmentsthatmayrequiredetailed legalanalysisor thepreparationofdraftlegislativetextto informitsdeliberations.