Kenya’s devolved governments were created to bring services and decision-making closer to the people. But when millions of shillings in public funds are spent on events whose value to ordinary taxpayers is difficult to justify, a fundamental question arises: who ultimately answers for the money?

That question is again confronting Kenya’s county governments after the Senate County Public Accounts Committee (CPAC) raised concerns over expenditure in Vihiga and Bungoma counties, prompting investigations by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC).

At the centre of the scrutiny are two striking expenditures: an alleged KSh5 million bill linked to a housewarming event at the residence of the Vihiga County Assembly Speaker and about KSh3.7 million spent on a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Bungoma in September 2019.

The figures alone are enough to raise questions. But the more important issue is what happens after those questions are raised.

Parliamentary hearings can expose questionable spending. Auditors can identify financial irregularities. Anti-corruption agencies can investigate. Yet none of these steps, on their own, amounts to accountability.

The real test comes when institutions establish the facts and act on them.

Vihiga’s KSh5 Million Question

Vihiga County found itself under scrutiny after senators questioned the reported expenditure of KSh5 million on a housewarming event at the residence of the County Assembly Speaker.

The matter subsequently came under the attention of the EACC, which sought documents to establish how the expenditure was authorised and processed.

Among the documents requested were requisitions, approved budgets, procurement records and payment documentation.

Those records are important because the size of an expenditure does not, by itself, establish that a crime was committed. Investigators must determine whether the spending was lawfully authorised, whether the procurement process complied with the applicable rules and whether the county received what it paid for.

That distinction matters.

Public outrage may be understandable when taxpayers hear of millions being spent on an event, but outrage cannot substitute for evidence. At the same time, due process should not become a convenient excuse for institutions to leave credible questions unanswered.

If public money was improperly spent, taxpayers deserve to know how, by whom and why.

If the expenditure was lawful and properly accounted for, that should equally be established clearly.

The Bungoma Christmas Tree That Raised Eyebrows

Bungoma presents another example of why scrutiny of county expenditure matters.

The county faced questions over spending of approximately KSh3.7 million on a Christmas tree lighting ceremony held in September 2019 — several months before Christmas.

The expenditure was raised during Senate scrutiny involving Governor Kenneth Lusaka. Citizen Digital reported the cost of the Christmas tree lighting at KSh3.689 million.

The EACC investigation goes beyond the Christmas tree event. It also covers a benchmarking trip to Mbale, Uganda, involving Members of the County Assembly and county officials.

According to the Commission, the expenditure associated with the trip and Christmas event amounted to KSh6.569 million.

The Commission sought a range of financial and administrative records, including imprest warrants, surrender vouchers, cashbooks and bank records. It also requested the personal files of 16 MCAs and six county assembly staff members.

The allegations under investigation include corruption, fraud and theft of public funds.

But once again, an allegation is not a conviction.

The investigation must establish what happened, whether the expenditure was legitimate, whether the required procedures were followed and whether public resources were lost.

That is where the difference between political debate and institutional accountability becomes critical.

Parliament Can Ask the Questions. Investigators Must Find the Answers.

The Senate has an important constitutional oversight role over public resources. Its committees can summon officials, interrogate expenditure and demand explanations.

But a parliamentary hearing is not a court of law.

A financial query is not automatically evidence of criminal conduct, and an official appearing before a committee should not be treated as guilty simply because questions have been raised about expenditure under their administration.

The same principle applies in the other direction.

Public officials cannot expect every uncomfortable financial question to disappear simply because no criminal charge has yet been filed.

The purpose of oversight is precisely to ensure that questionable spending is subjected to scrutiny.

Once a matter reaches an investigative agency such as the EACC, the burden shifts from political argument to evidence.

Investigators need to establish who authorised the expenditure, what procurement procedures were followed, what services or goods were delivered, whether the prices were reasonable and whether public money was lost.

Where wrongdoing is established, the appropriate legal process should follow.

Where wrongdoing is not established, those investigated should also have their names and reputations protected from unjustified accusations.

That is what credible accountability looks like.

Busia Shows the Problem Is Bigger Than Two Counties

The concerns raised in Vihiga and Bungoma do not exist in isolation.

In February 2026, Busia Governor Paul Otuoma appeared before the EACC to record a statement in an investigation involving allegations of corruption, revenue diversion and procurement irregularities involving more than KSh1.4 billion.

The EACC said its investigators were examining alleged irregular tenders and payments involving 26 companies reportedly linked to relatives and associates of senior county officials.

The transactions under examination reportedly cover the 2022/2023 to 2024/2025 financial years.

Again, these are allegations under investigation and should not be presented as established wrongdoing by the governor or any other person named in the inquiry.

But the case reinforces a wider concern: county governments control enormous public resources, and the systems designed to protect that money must work regardless of political affiliation or the identity of the officials involved.

Devolution cannot simply mean moving public expenditure from Nairobi to the counties.

It must also mean moving accountability closer to citizens.

The 2027 Election Should Not Determine Accountability

With the 2027 General Election approaching, public spending is certain to become a major political issue.

Governors and other county leaders will face increased scrutiny over their records. Political opponents will seize on allegations of waste and corruption, while incumbents will inevitably defend their administrations.

That is part of democratic politics.

But accountability should not become a campaign weapon that is activated only when an election is approaching.

Nor should political considerations determine which investigations receive attention and which ones quietly disappear.

A credible accountability system must operate whether an official is popular or unpopular, whether they belong to the government or opposition, and whether an election is two years away or two weeks away.

The Senate’s March 2026 proceedings drew attention to the speed with which the EACC responded to concerns surrounding the Vihiga and Bungoma expenditures.

That response is important.

But announcing an investigation is only the beginning.

The public should ultimately be able to know what investigators established, what action was taken and, where public funds were found to have been lost, whether efforts were made to recover them.

The Real Measure of Accountability

Kenya does not need more headlines announcing that public funds are under investigation.

It needs investigations that reach credible conclusions.

The Vihiga housewarming expenditure and Bungoma Christmas-tree spending have become symbols of a much larger question about how county governments prioritise and account for public resources.

A county may have a legal authority to spend money, but legality should not end the conversation about whether that spending represents value for taxpayers.

Public finance is ultimately about choices.

Every shilling spent on an event, trip or administrative activity is a shilling that cannot be spent somewhere else. Citizens therefore have a legitimate interest in knowing whether their money was used lawfully, prudently and for a demonstrable public purpose.

The answer cannot simply be another committee hearing.

It cannot be another investigation announcement.

And it cannot be another political exchange.

The real measure of accountability is what happens after the cameras leave, the hearings end and investigators complete their work.

If wrongdoing is proven, there must be lawful consequences and recovery of public resources where appropriate.

If the allegations are not substantiated, that conclusion should also be made clear.

For Kenya’s taxpayers, that is the accountability that matters: not the number of investigations announced, but the ability of public institutions to turn credible questions about public money into evidence, transparent findings and lawful action.