Tana River Senator Danson Mungatana has expressed his opposition to Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua’s campaign for a ‘one-man-one-shilling’ county revenue-sharing approach, citing the potential discriminatory impact on less populous counties.
In a statement issued on Sunday, Gachagua expressed his commitment to lobbying for the implementation of this formula to promote fairness and equity in the distribution of national resources among county administrations. The proposed strategy relies on population measures rather than geographical size.
Mungatana, on the other hand, opposed this approach, emphasizing its potential negative consequences for poorly populated and marginalized counties like Tana River, Garissa, and Isiolo.
In an interview with TV47, Mungatana labeled Gachagua’s stance as disappointing, warning that such ideas could jeopardize his presidential ambitions if he hopes to succeed William Ruto.
“I am a staunch proponent of ‘one-man-one-vote-one-square-kilometre’. So, we are fundamentally at odds. If he aspires to be President, disregarding counties like Lamu, Tana River, Garissa, Isiolo, Turkana, Taita Taveta, and Marsabit is a misstep,” Mungatana remarked.
Contrary to Gachagua’s assertions, Mungatana clarified that the Deputy President’s views did not necessarily reflect the stance of their shared political outfit, the UDA Party. He emphasized that such policy pronouncements should be deliberated within the party’s structures before being made public.
Gachagua had earlier emphasized the importance of the formula for the development of the Mount Kenya region, advocating for a system where resources are allocated based on population density, asserting that it corresponds with the principle of proportional contribution to national revenue.
Presently, county governments operate under a revenue allocation system where funds are distributed based on landmass rather than population.
However, Article 202(1) of the Constitution mandates equitable distribution of nationally raised revenue between the national and county governments, with provisions for additional allocations to counties from the national share of revenue, as specified in Section 2.
