Narok Senator Ledama Olekina has questioned the Office of the Controller of Budget over its handling of county government expenditure on local and foreign travel, arguing that the constitutional watchdog must explain whether the spending it reported had been lawfully approved before public funds were released.
He cited Article 228(5) of the Constitution, saying the provision "is explicit and leaves no room for ambiguity."
"Your office is mandated to authorize withdrawals only for expenditures that are lawful and properly approved. County spending must, at all times, be firmly anchored in an approved budget," Olekina explained.
The senator argued that the Controller of Budget's recent report on county governments' local and foreign travel expenditure risks being viewed as a distraction instead of serving as a meaningful accountability mechanism.
According to Olekina, publishing expenditure figures without clarifying whether the spending complied with approved budgets fails to promote transparency and leaves critical constitutional questions unanswered.
"As it stands, the report risks being interpreted as a distraction rather than a genuine accountability tool. Simply restating figures on travel expenditure, without clearly indicating whether such spending was lawfully approved, does little to advance transparency," he said.
Olekina's remarks come amid the Office of the Controller of Budget releasing its County Governments Budget Implementation Review Report for the first nine months of the 2025/26 financial year, highlighting sharp disparities in county spending on local and foreign travel.
The report showed that the 47 county governments collectively spent Sh13.17 billion on travel between July 1, 2025 and March 31, 2026, even as several development projects stalled due to low absorption of development funds.
Nairobi County emerged as the highest spender on travel at about Sh615 million, followed by Tana River (Sh502 million) and Kitui (Sh441 million).
At the other end, Lamu County recorded one of the lowest overall travel expenditures, although its Members of County Assembly attracted scrutiny after spending Sh65.4 million on five oversight trips to Arusha, Tanzania.
County officials also travelled to destinations including Singapore and the United Arab Emirates for benchmarking and training.
The report has renewed concerns over whether recurrent travel expenditure is undermining service delivery and development priorities in devolved governments.
The Narok Senator further clarified that the central issue is whether the Controller of Budget merely documented expenditure already approved by county assemblies or authorised withdrawals for spending that lacked legal backing.
"The fundamental question that your report fails to answer is this: was your office merely documenting expenditures already sanctioned by county assemblies, or did it authorize withdrawals for spending that was not supported by law?" he questioned.
He further argued that if withdrawals were approved for expenditure outside the law, it would amount to a serious breach of the constitutional responsibilities assigned to the office.
"If your office approved withdrawals for expenditures outside the law, then this constitutes a grave breach of constitutional responsibility. The country deserves clarity — who authorized such withdrawals, under what authority, and who must ultimately be held accountable?" Olekina wrote.
The senator maintained that the Office of the Controller of Budget should serve as an independent guardian of public resources by ensuring every withdrawal complies with the Constitution and approved budgets.
He concluded that Kenyans expect more than the publication of expenditure reports, insisting that constitutional oversight must be backed by accountability for every shilling released from public coffers.
"Kenyans expect the Office of the Controller of Budget to be a firm guardian of public resources, not a passive observer or a conduit for questionable expenditure. Anything less undermines both the letter and spirit of the Constitution."