Laikipia governor quizzed over Sh1.6bn pending bills, wage bill

Laikipia Governor Joshua Irungu has come under sharp criticism over the county’s failure to clear long-standing pending bills owed to contractors and suppliers.

The development came even as the lawmakers accused his administration of flouting the law and selectively paying debts accumulated under his tenure.

Appearing before the Senate County Public Accounts Committee (CPAC) on Wednesday, Irungu was put on the spot over pending bills amounting to Sh1.64 billion, including Sh1.15 billion recorded without supporting documentation.

According to an audit report by Auditor General Nancy Gathungu for the financial year ended June 30, 2025, more than Sh1.3 billion of the pending bills had been outstanding for over three years, with no explanation provided for their non-payment.

This situation, the report notes, places the county government in breach of Regulation 41(2) of the Public Finance Management Act, 2015, which requires pending bills to be settled as a first charge.

Audit records show the county paid pending bills worth Sh564 million during the period under review and an additional Sh251.5 million in the current financial year.

In the financial year ended June 2024, Sh456.2 million was paid, while Sh576.2 million was settled in the preceding year.

However, only Sh96.3 million of the old pending bills had been cleared by the current administration as at December 31 last year.

Senators questioned why the county appeared to prioritise newer pending bills while older debts remained unpaid.

“The trend we are seeing here is that the governor seems able to choose who to pay, while those not loyal to him end up being sidelined,” Laikipia Senator John Kinyua said.

Tharaka Nithi Senator Mwenda Gataya faulted the county for failing to give a clear justification.

“We have been treated to a lot of literature, but there is no explanation as to why the county government cannot pay the old pending bills first,” he said.

In response, Governor Irungu admitted the anomaly and pledged to align his administration with the law by prioritising older debts.

He told the committee the county would develop an ageing analysis policy to guide the settlement of pending bills.

However, CPAC vice chairperson and Taita Taveta Senator Johnes Mwaruma pressed the governor to provide timelines.

“Have you budgeted for the old pending bills, or when exactly do you plan to pay them? Some of the explanations you are giving us may just be stories,” Mwaruma said.

The governor assured senators the county would incorporate the old pending bills into its payment plans starting this financial year.

The committee also scrutinised Sh1.15 billion in pending bills recorded in the county’s register without essential supporting documents such as contract agreements, requisitions, delivery notes and local purchase or service orders.

“This is a complex issue. You may find that some people supplied ‘air’ and are now pushing to be paid,” Nyamira Senator Okong’o Omogeni said.

Governor Irungu said the county was undertaking a validation exercise and that unsupported claims would be derecognised.

“We included the pending bills to have visibility of all trade payable claims. So far, Sh674.7 million has been supported with documents, while claims worth Sh967 million remain unsupported,” he said.

But Mwaruma warned against abuse of the process.

“Will this exercise give you time to manufacture documents? If a service was offered, the documents must be there,” he said.

The county government was further faulted for a ballooning wage bill, having spent Sh3.28 billion—about 55 per cent of its total revenue of Sh5.97 billion—on compensation of employees, well above the legally prescribed ceiling of 35 per cent.

County officials defended the expenditure, arguing that Laikipia inherited an inflated wage bill from former local authorities and national government functions devolved to the county, including trade, infrastructure, agriculture and health.

Additionally, auditors flagged the payment of Sh24.9 million to eight private law firms for legal services that were directly procured without written approval from the accounting officer or documented proof of urgency, contrary to the Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act, 2015.

This was despite the county having a legal officer and a legal adviser.

The county defended the procurement, saying the law allows for such engagements under specific circumstances.