Revealed: Counties flagged for zero development spending
- Created by Juma Namlola
- Top News
Baringo, Elgeyo Marakwet, Embu, Isiolo, Kirinyaga, Kisii, Laikipia, Murang’a, Nyamira, Samburu and Tana River recorded zero development expenditure in the first quarter.
Several county governments have been flagged for failing to spend on development projects in the early months of the 2025/26 financial year, raising fresh concerns over delayed service delivery under devolution.
A report by the Office of the Controller of Budget shows that counties including Baringo, Elgeyo Marakwet, Embu, Isiolo, Kirinyaga, Kisii, Laikipia, Murang’a, Nyamira, Samburu and Tana River recorded zero development expenditure in the first quarter.
“A number of county governments did not incur any development expenditure during the period under review,” the report states.
The findings place the affected counties among the weakest performers in development absorption, even as billions continue to be allocated annually for infrastructure and public services.
What the report shows
Some counties spent nothing on development projects
Others recorded very low absorption rates
Spending remained heavily tilted toward recurrent expenditure, especially salaries and operations
“County governments’ expenditure was largely on recurrent activities, with development spending remaining low,” the Controller of Budget notes.
Why counties were flagged
The report attributes the delays to:
- late disbursement of funds from the national government
- slow procurement processes
- weak project planning and execution
What it means for residents
- delays in key projects such as roads, hospitals and water systems
- slower service delivery at the grassroots
- risk of funds remaining unspent
The Controller of Budget has urged counties to prioritise development spending to ensure public funds translate into tangible outcomes.
“There is need for county governments to prioritise development expenditure to achieve their planned objectives,” the report states.
The report contains detailed county-by-county data, with several administrations showing either zero or minimal spending on development, highlighting persistent challenges in translating budgets into tangible services.