A bitter budget standoff has erupted in Kitui County after Speaker Kevin Kinengo Katisya dramatically rejected the County Executive’s resubmitted Supplementary Budget II estimates, accusing the Finance Department of disregarding constitutional requirements and attempting to push the Assembly into approving an unlawful budget.
In a strongly worded communication delivered to the House, the Speaker declared that he would not yield to political pressure or intimidation, insisting that the Assembly would not process budget estimates that fail to meet constitutional and legal standards.
The latest move escalates an already simmering dispute between the County Assembly and the Executive, setting the stage for a potentially explosive showdown over the management of billions of shillings in public funds.
Mr Katisya told members that although he had earlier directed the County Executive Committee Member (CECM) for Finance, Economic Planning and Revenue Management to address concerns raised by the Assembly before resubmitting the estimates, the revised budget returned to the House on May 21 with the key issues untouched.
“The County Assembly is not a mere conveyor belt for budgetary proposals,” the Speaker said.
“It is a constitutional institution entrusted with the solemn responsibility of appropriation, oversight, accountability and protection of public resources.”
The Speaker argued that Article 201 of the Constitution demands accountability, openness and prudent use of public resources, making scrutiny of supplementary budgets a constitutional duty rather than a routine procedural exercise.
He maintained that the Assembly was under no obligation to approve estimates that fail the tests of legality, fiscal credibility and procedural propriety.
In remarks that underscored the growing tension surrounding the matter, Mr Katisya dismissed attempts to pressure his office into committing the budget for debate.
“From where I sit, I will not break any law because of political intimidation by anybody,” he said.
The Speaker also fired back at critics who have publicly questioned his position, saying his constitutional duty as presiding officer outweighs political interests.
“I cannot allow any agenda which is unconstitutional. A budget which is unconstitutional, I cannot and I will not allow. It does not matter how many times people go outside there and attack the Speaker.”
In a particularly defiant moment, Mr Katisya revealed that the Assembly would not even return the latest estimates to the Executive, as had happened previously.
“The communication is a public document. Let them do what they want to do,” he said.
The Speaker further linked his decision to ongoing national budget processes, noting that the Assembly had been invited to submit its views to the Senate on the Division of Revenue Act (DORA) and County Allocation of Revenue Act (CARA).
According to him, proceeding with supplementary budget estimates before the revenue-sharing framework is settled could itself raise constitutional questions.
Citing Article 224 of the Constitution, Mr Katisya said he would not intentionally violate the law to satisfy political interests.
The Speaker’s communication paints a grim picture of the resubmitted estimates, describing them as riddled with legal, fiscal, procedural and constitutional defects.
He said the proposals remain substantially non-compliant with the Constitution, the Public Finance Management Act, 2012, and established principles of public finance management.
“The County Assembly is not a ceremonial institution to endorse decisions emanating from other arms of government,” he said.
“Every budget proposal submitted must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny to ensure full compliance with the law.”
In what appeared to be a direct response to recent criticism from sections of the Executive, Mr Katisya accused unnamed leaders of attempting to use public forums to pressure the Assembly.
He insisted that anyone dissatisfied with his interpretation of the law was free to challenge the matter in court.
The decision now throws the fate of the supplementary budget into uncertainty and risks delaying planned expenditures by the county government unless the Executive addresses the concerns raised by the Speaker or seeks legal intervention.
With neither side showing signs of backing down, the dispute is shaping up to be one of the most consequential institutional confrontations witnessed in Kitui County in recent years, placing the Assembly and the Executive on a collision course over the control and oversight of public finances.
