Gathungu flags counties for ill-preparedness to handle disasters

Many county governments are dangerously ill-prepared—or not prepared at all—to respond to disasters, as their emergency funds remain empty or grossly underfunded, new audit reports have revealed.

Auditor General Nancy Gathungu has exposed widespread gaps in counties’ ability to handle crises, citing failure to allocate money to emergency kitties and diversion of funds meant for disaster response.

The auditor has also raised the red flag on non-compliance with financial management laws.

The revelations are contained in the Auditor General’s report on emergency funds for various county governments for the financial year ending June 30, 2025.

The reports paint a worrying picture of devolved units that continue to neglect the legal requirement to set aside adequate resources for emergency response, leaving millions of residents vulnerable to famine, fire outbreaks, flooding, disease outbreaks and other unforeseen disasters.

According to the audit, a number of counties still do not provide any money at all for emergencies, while others allocate insufficient amounts or misuse the funds altogether.

In the case of Siaya, for instance, the devolved unit failed to transfer money to its emergency fund despite an approved budget.

“During the year under review, the county assembly of Siaya appropriated a budget of Sh70 million towards the Siaya Emergency Fund.

“However, the county executive failed to transfer the appropriated monies to the Fund, contrary to section 4(2)(a) of the Siaya Emergency Fund,” the report notes.

As a result, the fund could not cater for any unforeseen expenditure due to the non-disbursement of the money.

In Taita Taveta, the county government allocated only Sh2.52 million to the emergency kitty against an expected budget of Sh10 million.

This represents a shortfall of Sh7.47 million—equivalent to 75 per cent of the planned allocation.

The auditor warned that such significant underfunding and under-expenditure may have compromised service delivery to residents, especially during crises requiring rapid intervention.

Kilifi was flagged for irregularities that led to a loss of Sh67.24 million through questionable procurement of relief food.

The county procured food items worth Sh220.99 million from seven suppliers, under a framework agreement arrangement signed in November 2022.

However, the county did not conduct the mandatory annual value-for-money assessments to confirm whether the quoted prices remained competitive.

Furthermore, the accounting officers failed to subject the procurement to mini-competitions—a requirement under Regulation 103 of the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Regulations, 2020.

The auditor noted that although a market survey was conducted in April 2024, the county management unjustifiably recommended marked-up prices, resulting in losses amounting to Sh67.24 million.

This failure, the report states, represents a serious breach of procurement law and a misuse of public funds intended for emergency response.

Embu county was similarly flagged after the executive spent Sh5.07 million from its emergency fund without a budget and then failed to secure approval for reimbursement within the legally required two months.

Even worse, the county failed to replenish the fund after spending the money, undermining its purpose. 

Under the Public Management (Embu County Emergency Fund) Regulations, 2020, county executives must introduce an appropriation law soon after approval to restore the fund to its authorised levels.

Embu’s failure to do so left the fund depleted and incapable of providing immediate financial resources in the event of a crisis.

Kisumu county was cited for over-expenditure after the emergency fund incurred expenses of Sh202.13 million despite having appropriated only Sh81.01 million.

According to Gathungu, this raised concerns over the fund’s ability to meet its obligations and sustainability going forward.

Further, Kisumu has not operationalised its emergency fund despite establishing it in 2018.

The fund still lacks enabling legislation, in violation of the Public Finance Management (PFM) Act, 2012.

In one questionable expenditure, the county withdrew Sh1.87 million from the fund to renovate storage facilities—an expense the auditor said did not meet the threshold of an emergency and therefore should not have been charged to the fund.

Nyamira allocated only Sh15 million—amounting to 0.19 per cent of its Sh8.10 billion annual budget—to the emergency fund.

The PFM Act requires counties to reserve at least one per cent of their annual budgets for emergencies.

For Nyamira, this should have amounted to Sh81.02 million, leaving a shortfall of Sh66.02 million.

Nakuru was also cited for gross underfunding.

The county allocated Sh70 million—equivalent to 0.4 per cent of its Sh15.59 billion budget—to the emergency fund, below the 0.5 per cent threshold set by the Nakuru County Emergency Fund Regulations, 2016.

The auditor noted that the county should have contributed at least Sh77.96 million, meaning the emergency kitty was underfunded by Sh7.96 million.

In Turkana, the auditor found that the county diverted Sh108.29 million from its emergency fund and lent it to the county executive without obtaining the necessary approvals from the county assembly and the Fund Administration Committee.

The PFM Act requires county governments to seek assembly approval before borrowing cash for short-term cash flow management.

Additionally, the auditor noted that there was no evidence the lent amount was repaid within one year as required by law.

The audit reports collectively highlight a persistent pattern of financial mismanagement, inadequate funding, and disregard for statutory requirements across several devolved units.

With counties failing to properly operationalise, finance, and manage their emergency kitties, millions of Kenyans remain at heightened risk whenever disasters strike.

Gathungu warned that unless county governments urgently address these gaps—by complying with financial laws, enhancing transparency and prioritising emergency preparedness—residents will continue to face preventable suffering during crises.

The auditor emphasised that emergency funds exist to cushion counties against unforeseen and urgent needs and their mismanagement exposes both governance weaknesses and a worrying neglect of public welfare.

INSTANT ANALYSIS

A County Emergency Fund is a government financial reserve, established under the Public Finance Management Act, to quickly cover urgent, unforeseen county expenses (like disaster relief) not already budgeted for, funded by appropriations from the county assembly and managed by the County Finance Executive for specific, unexpected needs.