A fierce political backlash has greeted the cooperation agreement between William Ruto and Johnson Sakaja, with critics warning the Sh80 billion pact could undermine devolution and open the door to misuse of public funds.
The agreement, signed at State House, seeks to accelerate service delivery in Nairobi through joint national and county government efforts targeting roads, drainage, housing, water systems, solid waste management and environmental restoration.
The national government argues that Nairobi’s status as the country’s capital and economic hub justifies coordinated intervention.
However, senators, MPs and civil society groups say the deal was crafted without sufficient consultation and risks sidelining constitutional oversight institutions.
Nairobi Senator Edwin Sifuna has been among the most vocal opponents, demanding that the full agreement be made public.
He has warned that any arrangement affecting county functions must undergo Senate scrutiny, cautioning that opaque frameworks weaken devolution safeguards.
Sifuna has also argued that Nairobi generates significant revenue and should not cede control of core services without clear legal structures and accountability mechanisms.
Embakasi East MP Babu Owino has echoed transparency concerns, claiming the scale of funding involved could turn the capital into a procurement battleground ahead of the 2027 General Election.
He has urged greater public oversight, warning that large infrastructure budgets often attract corruption risks if safeguards are weak.
Opponents further argue the pact resembles the defunct Nairobi Metropolitan Services (NMS) arrangement, which transferred key functions from the county to the national government.
They fear a repeat scenario could dilute local accountability.
Supporters of the partnership insist it does not transfer authority but strengthens cooperation to address chronic infrastructure failures, flooding, waste disposal challenges and water shortages.
Governor Sakaja has maintained that Nairobi County retains its constitutional mandate while benefiting from national technical support and financing.
The controversy has intensified calls for transparency and parliamentary oversight.
As Nairobi confronts rapid urban growth and mounting service demands, the dispute highlights the tension between fast-tracked development and the need to safeguard constitutional governance and public accountability.