Chaos erupted in the Wajir County Assembly on Tuesday, July 30, as Members of the County Assembly (MCAs) rejected the proposed budget for the 2024/25 financial year, leading to a dramatic disruption of proceedings.
The session began with tension in the air as the mace, the symbol of the assembly’s authority, was brought into the chamber.
Assembly Floor Transforms into a Battleground
The assembly floor transformed into a battleground as MCAs grappled with each other and security personnel. The coveted mace became the focal point of a frenzied tug-of-war, eventually being forcibly removed from the chamber amidst the chaos.
As some members pursued the mace outside, the assembly dissolved into further disarray. Those in favor of the budget found themselves in heated verbal exchanges with their opponents.
Meanwhile, another faction within the chamber expressed their dissent more physically – upending furniture, scattering official documents, and filling the air with impassioned chants in their native tongue.
Several MCAs argued passionately that the financial plan failed to address the genuine needs of Wajir’s citizens. They pointed to what they perceived as misplaced priorities and a lack of equitable distribution of services across the county.
Official Statement
In an official statement, the dissident MCAs leveled serious accusations against the county government:
“The 2010 Constitution is clear that the sovereign power belongs to the people. Since being elected in 2022, the county assembly approved close to Ksh24 billion budget for two financial years,” the statement read. “Not more than Ksh600 million went to the grassroots, Ksh23.4 billion was misappropriated within Wajir Town.”
The MCAs outlined several key reasons for their rejection of the budget:
1. Inadequate public participation: They alleged that the views of citizens were not properly incorporated into the budget-making process.
2. Uneven engagement: In some areas, officials tasked with conducting public participation were reportedly turned away, leading to concerns about inequality in representation.
3. Procedural irregularities: The MCAs claimed that the fiscal strategy paper was not submitted to the sectoral committees as required by standing orders, rendering the budget process illegal in their view.
4. Centralization of services: There were accusations that the county government had failed to decentralize key services, leaving many residents underserved.
5. Unfulfilled campaign promises: The MCAs argued that the proposed budget did not align with commitments made to citizens during the election period.
