A review that will decide who receives billions of shillings from the Equalisation Fund has triggered a fierce contest among counties, with leaders sharply divided on whether the money should remain concentrated in historically marginalised regions or be spread to disadvantaged communities across the country.
The disagreement has emerged as the Commission on Revenue Allocation (CRA) undertakes a review of the Third Policy for Identifying Marginalised Areas, a process that will shape future access to one of the country's key development funds.
At the centre of the debate is the question of who should qualify for support under the Equalisation Fund, which is provided for under the Constitution and receives 0.5 per cent of all nationally collected revenue. The fund is used to improve access to essential services including healthcare, roads, water and electricity in areas considered marginalised.
Leaders from the 14 counties that were first recognised as marginalised have urged CRA to revert to the original approach used when the fund was introduced. They argue that broadening the list of beneficiaries has reduced the impact of the allocation and left historically neglected areas with less funding than intended.
Kakamega Senator Boni Khalwale said the purpose of the fund was to address marginalisation that had persisted for decades and not to serve as a poverty reduction programme.
“My position is that the Equalisation Fund was not meant to fight poverty but to fight marginalisation. If it is about fighting poverty, then all counties should benefit,” he said.
According to Khalwale, the expansion of eligible areas has stretched resources too thin, making it difficult for the fund to deliver meaningful change in the regions it was originally designed to support.
“I saw a region that was allocated Sh3 million. What can Sh3 million do when it comes to healthcare provision? It is minimal. Let us fight marginalisation, not poverty, with the Equalisation Fund,” he said.
The issue is likely to attract increased attention as counties seek to influence the review process before the commission publishes the revised policy.
Those supporting a return to the earlier framework argue that the fund should remain focused on counties that have historically lagged behind in development. However, leaders from other regions maintain that deprivation exists beyond the counties initially classified as marginalised.
They contend that many wards, locations and subcounties continue to lack basic services despite being located within counties that appear more developed on paper.
The current framework was introduced through the second policy adopted in 2018. Under that model, the number of eligible beneficiaries grew from 14 counties to 1,424 marginalised areas spread across 34 counties after the assessment shifted from county-level analysis to subcounty-level evaluation.
Supporters of that approach say it allows resources to reach communities that would otherwise be overlooked. They argue that development disparities exist within counties and that some remote areas still face severe shortages of public services.
As part of the review, CRA has already engaged governors from the 14 counties that benefited under the first policy. During the consultations, the governors called for a return to the initial model.
The commission has also held discussions with the Senate Finance and Budget Committee and plans to continue consultations with Members of the National Assembly, civil society organisations and members of the public before completing the exercise.
CRA chairperson Mary Chebukati said the review process presents a chance to strengthen the policy by drawing from experiences gained during the implementation of earlier frameworks.
“The review presents an important opportunity to reflect on lessons from previous policies and ensure that the next framework remains responsive to the needs of marginalised communities,” she said.
Chebukati added that views gathered during the consultations would help shape a framework that responds to evolving development priorities while promoting equitable development as required by the Constitution.