The move has reopened an old but unresolved question is Nairobi City County too complex to be governed like any other county under Kenya’s devolved system?
The partnership, formalized at State House earlier this week, allows the national government to support the city in critical service areas that have long faced operational and financial challenges.
While supporters describe the arrangement as pragmatic and necessary, critics warn it could undermine the spirit of devolution enshrined in the Constitution.
Governor Sakaja has defended the decision, arguing that Nairobi’s unique status as Kenya’s capital and economic hub demands innovative governance solutions.
He maintains that the collaboration does not amount to surrendering authority but rather ensures residents receive reliable services without political turf wars.
According to him, the capital cannot afford inefficiencies given its central role in national and regional affairs.
However, some Members of the County Assembly and political leaders have questioned the implications of the agreement.
They argue that devolved units were designed to independently manage local functions, and ceding responsibilities to the national government could set a precedent that weakens county autonomy.
Also Read
For them, Nairobi’s challenges stem from leadership, funding gaps, and administrative bottlenecks not structural inadequacies in devolution.
The debate is not new. Since the advent of devolution in 2013, Nairobi has grappled with revenue shortfalls, infrastructure strain, rapid population growth and overlapping mandates between national and county agencies.
Previous administrations also faced pressure that culminated in the formation of the Nairobi Metropolitan Services (NMS) in 2020 under former President Uhuru Kenyatta.
The NMS arrangement temporarily transferred key functions to the national government, a move that delivered mixed reactions from residents and political observers alike.
As the seat of power, Nairobi hosts national institutions, diplomatic missions and major infrastructure, placing demands far beyond those faced by most counties.
Some experts have proposed granting the city a special administrative status similar to capital cities in other countries, with shared oversight between county and national authorities.
Yet others caution that altering Nairobi’s status could create legal and constitutional complexities.
Any structural change would likely require legislative amendments and careful political negotiation.
For now, the Sakaja administration insists the cooperation agreement is about service delivery, not politics.
But as discussions intensify across political and civic spaces, one reality is clear the future governance model of Nairobi is once again at the center of Kenya’s devolution debate.
