The cooperation agreement signed on Tuesday between President William Ruto and Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja has reopened debate about the governance of the capital.
The deal has inevitably drawn comparisons with the 2020 Deed of Transfer that created the Nairobi Metropolitan Services (NMS) under retired President Uhuru Kenyatta and former Governor Mike Sonko.
While both arrangements seek to address Nairobi’s chronic service delivery failures, they differ in legal structure, political context and execution model.
At its core, the Sakaja–Ruto pact establishes a cooperative framework between the national and county governments aimed at accelerating infrastructure development without dismantling devolution.
Sakaja secured an additional Sh80 billion in funding commitments following the signing of the agreement, positioning it as a financial boost to unlock stalled projects.
A key highlight of the deal is the Sh1 billion allocated specifically for improving Nairobi’s stormwater drainage system to curb perennial flooding.
In addition, Sh9 billion has been pledged for the construction of two parallel 27-kilometre trunk sewer lines along the Nairobi River corridor, Sh6 billion earmarked for a new sewer treatment plant with a projected capacity of 60,000 cubic litres per day, Sh3 billion allocated for last-mile sewer connectivity, and Sh15 billion set aside for long-term sewer expansion and upgrades.
In total, Sh34 billion has been committed to sewerage and drainage-related projects alone — a significant intervention aimed at resolving flooding and sanitation challenges that have long plagued the city.
Beyond water and sanitation, the agreement aligns Nairobi County’s plans with the national government’s affordable housing agenda, paving the way for large-scale urban renewal projects.
Road upgrades, transport integration, water source development, solid waste management and public lighting are also listed among priority areas.
Unlike the 2020 Deed of Transfer, however, the new pact is anchored on Sections 5 and 6 of the Urban Areas and Cities Act, which encourage cooperation between the two levels of government in managing capital city functions.
It does not invoke Article 187 of the Constitution, which allows for the transfer of functions from one level of government to another.
The 2020 agreement between Kenyatta and Sonko was far more drastic. Signed on February 25, 2020, at State House, the Deed of Transfer formally handed over four core functions, health services, roads, transport and public works, utilities and ancillary services, and planning and development , from Nairobi City County to the national government.
These functions were managed under the Nairobi Metropolitan Services (NMS), led by Major General Mohamed Badi.
The move followed persistent crises at City Hall, including leadership wrangles, corruption allegations, financial mismanagement and deteriorating service delivery, which the national government argued required urgent intervention.
NMS was allocated Sh23.9 billion in the 2020/21 financial year. In May 2020, reports indicated an allocation of Sh26.4 billion to support Covid-19 response measures.
In 2021/22, it received Sh20.1 billion, comprising Sh12.1 billion for recurrent expenditure and Sh8 billion for development, alongside a supplementary Sh3.5 billion.
During its tenure, NMS undertook extensive road rehabilitation, installed street lighting, refurbished health centres and expanded ICU capacity during the Covid-19 pandemic.
It also worked on market upgrades and decongestion initiatives. On September 30, 2022, NMS operations formally ended and the national government handed back the transferred functions to Nairobi County.
Governor Sakaja has sought to clearly distinguish the new arrangement from that era.
“This is not an NMS takeover. That was a misadventure that left behind Sh16 billion in debt. This is not a transfer of function. This is a cooperation that recognises Nairobi as the nation’s capital. The current financing of the capital is not sufficient, and this partnership is a way to secure more funds, achieve more projects, and demonstrate that, 13 years later, the President has heard us,” Sakaja said.
Ruto also moved to calm fears that the agreement represents a backdoor takeover of county powers.
“What we are formalizing today is not a transfer of functions. Let me repeat there is no transfer of functions taking place. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no interest in running the city; my hands are already full. The Governor and his team must continue to run the city. However, as President, I have an obligation to support and assist the capital city,” he said.
Yet critics argue that the structure of the pact suggests deeper national involvement than is being acknowledged.
Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna has demanded the immediate revocation of the agreement, warning that he will challenge its legality if it is not withdrawn.
“I am demanding that this agreement be revoked in its entirety,” Sifuna said. “Failing which, I will challenge its legality. In fact the matter will be brought to the Senate.”
“From its very structure, this arrangement subordinates the county government to the national executive,” he added. “This is not cooperation. It is a takeover.”
Sifuna also questioned the 14-day window before the agreement takes effect, arguing that meaningful public participation cannot be conducted within such a short timeframe.
He criticised what he described as a clause that limits civic input to amendments rather than allowing outright rejection.
The senator further claimed that national government institutions owe Nairobi County more than Sh100 billion in unpaid rent and other obligations.
“If the national government simply cleared what it already owes Nairobi, we would have the resources to settle our own pending bills and fund development projects — roads, markets, drainage, waste management,” he said.
According to Sifuna, Nairobi has the highest volume of pending bills among counties, exceeding Sh100 billion.
Whether the new framework will succeed where previous interventions struggled remains an open question. For supporters, it represents pragmatic cooperation aimed at fixing a city
For critics, it risks blurring constitutional lines and setting a precedent for incremental centralisation.
Comments 0
Sign in to join the conversation
Sign In Create AccountNo comments yet. Be the first to share your thoughts!