Demanding accountability from governors not a witch-hunt

If there is any issue that has vexed county governors and created disharmony in the devolutionists in recent months is the demand for accountability. Is it just a buzzword used by watchdog institutions to intimidate and demonise the governors, or is it a legitimate demand for probity that is being avoided by them?

The term accountability relates to the obligations of a public entity entrusted with public resources to be answerable on the responsibilities assigned, and is about assumption of responsibility for actions; to explain how these resources committed to their custody for a period of time has been accounted for.

Consequently, the governors, like other state officers, must ensure compliance with the Constitution, and the many legislations that give effect to these provisions in various spheres.

In public service, the key watchdog institutions that are mandated by law to examine or audit public entities at both the national and county levels of government are many but the key ones include the Controller of Budget, Auditor General, Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission, Director of Public Prosecutions, the National Assembly, the Senate, and the County Assemblies. In the case of counties, the Transitional Authority and the Commission on Revenue Allocation also have legal mandate to assess them and give recommendations. The specific roles of these institutions and their mandates vary but each can initiate a process to carry out their mandate, or use a report of other watchdog institutions to do so as in the case of parliament.

In counties, the Controller of Budget examines their books with regard to budget utilisation, and reports to Parliament and county assemblies quarterly. Their report highlights their monthly drawdowns, their treasury records and transactions, analysis of their expenditures, compliance with approved financial systems, etc. The Auditor General audits their books annually to assess validity of expenditures by verifying to supporting documentation, value for money audits, procurement law compliance, and whether or not all monies and resources of the county has been accounted for, among others, and submits his report annually to Parliament and County Assemblies. We all know what the EACC and the DPP deal with; further investigations on specific cases to determine criminal culpability.

Parliament, in this case the Senate, through its committees, examines these reports by inviting the governors who are the CEOs of counties, to provide explanations and responses to the queries raised by the Controller and the Auditor General. Invariably, queries raised by the auditors are those key issues that could not cleared by county finance officials during the site audit, and hence the need to summon the governors. Article 179 of the Constitution defines the governor as the county CEO, and Sec 30 of the County Government Act charges him with the 'management of all the county resources'. Legally, these audit queries can only be deemed cleared if the committee reports so to the House and its reports are adopted. No amount of public or media lamentations will erase the query from the record of the House.

 

The same reports on national government and its institutions are submitted to Parliament within the same time frame. These include audits of both houses of parliament, the CDF, the Judiciary, the State House etc. Indeed, the Auditor General's report for 2012/13 on these institutions are available. Even the Auditor General's office is audited by an audit firm as required by the Constitution.

 

It is therefore imperative that governors desist from playing victim and account for all the resources at their disposal, including the use of powers vested upon them.