A new scorecard meant to show how well Kenya’s 47 county governments are handling public finances has run into resistance from governors, with several leaders saying the results do not tell the full story of what happens on the ground.
The County Fiscal Performance Measurement Index (CFPMI), prepared by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO), placed Embu as the best-performing county, while Kisumu, Kakamega, Busia, Bomet and Nairobi were listed among the counties with the weakest results.
The rankings have since sparked debate between county leaders and the Senate, with governors questioning whether the measures used can fairly compare counties that operate with different budgets, financial obligations and circumstances.
The assessment looked at seven areas of county financial management. They include the ability to implement budgets, development spending, revenue collected locally, control of the wage bill, pending bills, expenditure by county assemblies and audit results.
Senate Speaker Amason Kingi backed the exercise, describing it as the first scientific way of measuring how responsibly counties use public funds.
But governors have raised several concerns about the approach, particularly the weight given to budget absorption and other financial figures.
Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja said the figures used in the assessment should not be treated as a complete measure of a county's performance.
“Budget absorption is an important fiscal indicator, but it is only one aspect of performance. It measures the proportion of allocated development funds that has been spent; it does not, on its own, capture the actual monetary value of development projects implemented,” he said.
Sakaja said Nairobi's performance could not be properly understood by looking at the percentage of its development budget that had been spent.
According to the governor, the capital county recorded the highest actual development expenditure among the 47 counties during the 2024/25 financial year, spending Sh4.308 billion.
He further said Nairobi collected Sh15.4 billion in own-source revenue during the 2025/26 financial year, its highest collection.
Sakaja said the size of a county's development budget must also be considered when comparing absorption rates.
“A county with a relatively modest development allocation may achieve a higher absorption rate while investing significantly less in actual development than a county with a much larger budget,” he said.
Makueni Governor Mutula Kilonzo Jr said he was also not convinced that the criteria provided a fair comparison between counties.
“I have not understood the criteria used.
Our development is affected by many things and all counties are not the same,” he said.
Mutula said Makueni had reached a 73 per cent budget implementation rate by the close of the financial year.
He also said the county's own-source revenue had reached a record Sh1.6 billion.
In Meru, Governor Isaac Mutuma questioned whether the index reflected the work of his administration after he took over leadership of the county in March 2025.
Mutuma became governor after the impeachment of former Governor Kawira Mwangaza.
His office said relying largely on figures from the previous financial year meant the ranking did not show the reforms introduced by the new administration.
“We have prioritised prudent financial management, fiscal discipline, accelerated implementation of development projects and improved service delivery across Meru County,” the statement said.
Murang’a Governor Irungu Kang’ata took issue with the way development was measured.
Although he said the index could encourage counties to improve their development spending, he argued that the assessment appeared to focus too much on physical projects.
Kang’ata said services and programmes that improve people's lives, including healthcare, bursaries, school meals and human capital development, should also be considered when measuring development.
“Development is not what you build. It is what people can do,” Dr Kang’ata said.
Bungoma Governor Kenneth Lusaka questioned the process used to develop the assessment, saying county governments should have been more involved.
“It was not a fair rating. We need to be taken through the criteria. It is unfair when you carry out some assessment in a clandestine manner,” he said.
Kisumu Governor Anyang’ Nyong’o said he would examine the report before giving his detailed position on the findings.
However, the reaction from governors was not entirely negative.
Narok Governor Patrick Ole Ntutu, whose county finished second, welcomed the assessment and agreed with the findings.
“Very well done. I totally agree with the Senate index,” he said.
Nakuru Governor Susan Kihika also backed the results after Nakuru was ranked ninth.
She said the position supported her administration's emphasis on careful management of public finances and development.
Council of Governors Chairperson Ahmed Abdullahi, whose Wajir County was ranked third, had not responded to calls and messages seeking his views by the time of publication.
The Senate, meanwhile, maintained that the index was based on information obtained from public oversight bodies.
Kingi said data from institutions such as the Office of the Auditor-General and the Controller of Budget was used in preparing the assessment.
He also rejected the idea that the exercise was intended to turn counties into a competition.
“The purpose is not to generate a league table or encourage unhealthy competition among counties. Rather, it is to identify good practices, highlight areas requiring improvement and provide an objective basis upon which we can determine whether public resources are translating into meaningful development,” he said.
Senate Majority Leader Aaron Cheruiyot also dismissed suggestions that political interests played a role in the results.
He said the ranking was based on financial information and not political considerations.
“The results are pure science and nothing beyond science,” he said.
The disagreement has left the new fiscal scorecard facing its first major test, with governors questioning whether the measures provide a balanced picture of county performance while the Senate insists the findings offer an objective way of examining how public money is being managed.
While some counties have embraced their positions on the list, others are demanding greater clarity on the criteria and a broader approach that takes into account the amount of money spent, the services delivered and the different financial circumstances facing each county.