More than a decade after the introduction of devolution, communities should stop relying solely on historical marginalisation to explain poor development and instead demand answers from the leaders managing billions of shillings in county resources, communication consultant Odhiambo Otieno has said.
Otieno said the challenges created by years of unequal development remain a valid concern, but argued that the establishment of county governments in 2013 gave communities a new opportunity to influence how resources are distributed and used.
Speaking during a Radio Generation interview on Tuesday, he questioned what county leaders have done since devolution began to address the inequalities that had left some regions behind for decades.
“Let me begin by saying that it will be unfair and dishonest for somebody to say that it is not okay to talk about marginalisation in this day and age. I think it is still a relevant topic, but the question is, from 2013, what have the leaders done to try and correct this question of marginalisation?”
Devolution was introduced under the 2010 Constitution as part of efforts to address unequal development, bring government closer to citizens and give communities greater control over decisions affecting them.
Article 174 sets out several objectives of devolution, including promoting accountable government, protecting marginalised communities, supporting social and economic development, improving access to services and ensuring the equitable sharing of national and local resources.
Since county governments came into operation, billions of shillings have been transferred to the 47 devolved units. The Commission on Revenue Allocation says Parliament approved and shared Sh3.741 trillion with counties through equitable-share revenue-sharing bases between the final quarter of the 2012/13 financial year and 2024/25.
For the 2025/26 financial year, counties received Sh405.1 billion as equitable share, while the Equalisation Fund was allocated Sh10.589 billion. For 2026/27, the CRA has recommended Sh458.94 billion for counties and Sh9.60 billion for the Equalisation Fund.
Otieno said the amount of money channelled to counties should prompt residents to assess what their local governments have delivered rather than continuing to place the blame entirely on past marginalisation.
He said the purpose of devolution was not simply to create county administrations but to ensure public funds resulted in visible improvements in people's daily lives, including better healthcare, water, roads, education and other basic services.
His assessment, he said, was also informed by his travels across different counties, where he has seen varying levels of development and questioned why some areas appear to have made better use of devolved resources than others.
He cited developments he had witnessed in Kirinyaga and Kiambu as examples of what county governments can achieve when resources are directed towards development priorities.
“The little that we've received, what have you done with it? What have we done with it? Come to roads, Kiambu. Come to streetlights. If I compare these two, just on devolution alone, I think most of our communities are self-marginalising in this new age, and the self-marginalisation comes from bad leadership and then scapegoatism.”
Otieno said the problem in some counties was not only poor leadership but also leaders who lacked both the commitment and ability to turn public funds into functioning services.
“Greedy, incompetent leadership. If they were not greedy, the money that is supposed to go into development would actually go into development. If they were competent, then we would see things working.”
He challenged residents to look beyond county budget figures and demand evidence of what has been delivered in their wards.
“You should be able to see development worth hundreds of millions of shillings in your ward. I'm not asking to see everything. I'm just asking to see one borehole. I'm asking to see one health centre. Nothing much. So where is this money going?”
The consultant said continued use of historical marginalisation as the main explanation for present-day development problems could allow current leaders to escape scrutiny over their performance and management of public funds.
He maintained that the constitutional changes adopted in 2010 were designed to give communities a stronger role in determining their development and to make public resources more accessible at the local level.
According to Otieno, devolution and mechanisms such as the Equalisation Fund were intended to help correct historical inequalities and give communities a greater chance of benefiting from public resources regardless of where they live.
He said the success of devolution should therefore not be measured only by the amount of money allocated to counties, but by whether those resources have produced services and projects that residents can see and use.
Otieno said devolution should be viewed as a constitutional promise that public resources would reach communities, improve local services and give citizens a greater say in how their areas are developed.
He urged communities to hold their current leaders accountable where that promise has not been met, arguing that historical marginalisation remains important but cannot by itself explain continued development gaps after more than a decade of devolved government.
For him, the debate should now include a closer examination of leadership, priorities and the use of county resources, particularly in communities that continue to lack basic services despite the billions allocated to devolved governments.