securing the counties: options for security after devolution in kenya

Executive Summary The March 2013 general elections brought into place the first devolved system of government as envisaged by the 2010 Constitution of Kenya, a popular move, for which Kenyans had voted, in the hope that it would correct regional economic and political marginalization and promote participation and accountability. Devolution handed the day to day running of counties to 47 elected county governors, each working alongside county assemblies, and a professional county bureaucracy. The national government retained control over certain core functions, including security and education. One year since the devolved system of governance came into place, it is evident that the system has precipitated changes in various sectors sometimes blurring the lines of the demarcations envisaged by the constitution or introducing new unanticipated dynamics. In particular, the constitution is explicit that security is the mandate of the national government. Nevertheless, devolution has introduced new variables to the processes that generate security and insecurity as well as to the management of security in general. It is also evident from the constitution, the county governments' legislation and practice, that while counties do not have a direct mandate to provide security, they have vital functions in priority setting and an important development mandate which impacts upon drivers of insecurity such as unemployment, inequality and disputes over land. Moreover, it is within counties that what are termed national security concerns emerge, crystallize and are ultimately resolved. Consequently, county governance is inextricably weaved with the national functions of security management and governance. Even in the absence of an explicit constitutional provision, in practice, security is emerging as a concurrent function with both the national and county governments co-financing security activities. This signals an important innovation with regard to security governance under the devolved system of government. The extent of the link between county governance and processes of security and insecurity one year after the system came into place is a critical policy question. After all, it will be remembered that one of the uncertainties surrounding the question of devolution was the fear that it may lead to more conflicts, destabilization and national insecurity. This study, which comes one year after the country ushered in a new devolved system of governance, is an important opportunity to examine and assess the extent to which devolution has shaped, structured and transformed security management and governance in Kenya. Specifically, the study, which was conducted over four months, set out to achieve the following: (i) To examine the architecture for security under the new constitutional order (ii) To map the key security actors and their roles under the new devolved governance system (iii) To explore the drivers of conflict and insecurity within the new system of county governance, and (iv) To inform various actors on the emerging potentials for addressing the new conflict and security dynamics. Three major urban counties, Nairobi, Mombasa (incorporating other parts of the coast region), and Kisumu, and two rural counties, Garissa and Turkana, were visited to provide a broad perspective in terms of economic development, political, ethnic and religious affiliation and security challenges such as resource-based conflict, border management, terrorism, small arms and violent crime