At least 26 county governments are staring at a financial paralysis after the Controller of Budget (CoB) rejected their 2025/26 budgets over illegal allocations, missing documents, and disguised expenditures.
CoB Margaret Nyakang’o announced that counties including Nakuru, Kisumu, Uasin Gishu, Bungoma, and Narok will not receive funding until they comply with the law. She said her office flagged budgets that failed to link spending to specific projects, disguised recurrent costs as development, or were submitted late.
“Only the cleared ones are sent to IFMIS and can therefore requisition funds. The ones with comments mean that we came across non-compliance in the submitted budget and wrote back to the county to explain themselves and commit to correcting any shortcomings within the timelines provided,” Nyakang’o stated.
The affected counties risk delayed salaries, stalled payments to suppliers, and severe shortages in hospitals. Other counties flagged include Bomet, Busia, Kajiado, Kericho, Garissa, Wajir, Mandera, Meru, Nyandarua, Trans Nzoia, Siaya, and Isiolo. Kericho’s budget is still under review, while Isiolo’s has been referred to the CoB’s legal department.
Nyakang’o cited Section 104 (1) of the County Government Act, 2012, which requires all county spending to be anchored on approved planning frameworks such as the County Integrated Development Plan (CIDP), Annual Development Plan, and County Fiscal Strategy Paper (CFSP). Many of the flagged counties only submitted these documents this month, contributing to disbursement delays.
She further revealed that while the National Treasury released July allocations on August 11, most counties had not requisitioned even for salaries. Treasury CS John Mbadi confirmed the funds were already transferred to the County Revenue Fund but insisted counties cannot access them until budget issues are resolved.
The CoB also faulted counties for failing to provide program-based budgets with project locations, objectives, and costs, stressing that some disguised recurrent expenditures as development to meet the 30 per cent legal threshold.
“Information on the geographical location of projects is necessary in ascertaining equity in resource allocation across the county. It would also facilitate the monitoring of projects in a transparent manner,” her office said.
As the stalemate drags on, pressure is mounting on county administrations to comply or risk plunging into a full-blown service delivery crisis.
 rejected their 2025/26 budgets over illegal allocations, missing documents, and disguised expenditures.){kind=link}