WALIGUUUULA, What 5,000,000 for House Warming Party Says of our County's Priorities!

Power, Comfort, and the Quiet Exclusion of Vihiga’s Youth

There are moments when public outrage is not born of shock, but of recognition. When a story emerges and citizens respond not with disbelief but with a tired nod—of course—it signals something deeper than a single incident. It signals a pattern.

The recent reports concerning the use of KSh 5,000,000 of county funds on a house-warming event at the Speaker’s official residence in 2023 have provoked such a response in Vihiga County. The matter, already entangled with other unresolved audit questions surrounding the same residence, was later addressed before the Senate Committee on Accounts. Yet the explanations offered by the county administration felt incomplete, carefully worded, and ultimately unsatisfying. They answered around the issue, not into it.

This was not an isolated concern. In the same breath, questions were raised about KSh 6,000,000 used in a manner inconsistent with the law to facilitate car mortgage arrangements for MCAs. Once again, the public was presented with procedural justifications where ethical clarity was expected.

Together, these incidents point not merely to accounting disputes, but to a governing culture that has grown comfortable prioritizing itself.

When Public Money Loses Its Public Purpose

Public resources are moral instruments before they are financial ones. They express what a government values.

In Vihiga, that expression has become increasingly difficult to defend. While discretionary spending appears readily available for residences, vehicles, and internal benefits, entire segments of the population remain conspicuously absent from meaningful budgetary consideration.

Chief among them: the youth.

Vihiga is young by every demographic measure. Its future—in labour, innovation, culture, and productivity—rests squarely on people under the age of 35. Yet year after year, no serious allocation exists to operationalize youth startup and innovation financing, despite clear provisions in national and local law.

When pressed on this omission, the recurring explanation from the County Assembly and sections of the administration is that “there are no clear structures” through which such funds can be channeled.

This claim collapses under even modest scrutiny.

The Convenient Myth of “No Structures”

The county already has a Youth Service Board, established to anchor youth programming. Beyond this, the Social Registry records thousands of registered youth groups and community-based organizations, while business registration data reflects even higher numbers of youth-led enterprises and initiatives. These are not hypothetical beneficiaries. They are active, documented, and operating—often with little more than personal sacrifice and community support.

To argue that structures do not exist is therefore not a technical assessment; it is a political decision to look away.

The Youth Service Act does not treat startup and innovation financing as an optional gesture. It recognizes it as a development necessity. Vihiga County is expected to translate this mandate into budgets, programs, and partnerships. Vihiga’s failure to do so is not for lack of guidance, but for lack of priority.

What Was Chosen Instead

The contrast is stark.

The KSh 5,000,000 reportedly spent on a single private celebration could, under existing and proven models such as the World Bank-supported NYOTA framework, have supported dozens—if not over a hundred—youth enterprises. Enterprises that generate income, dignity, and tax-paying citizens.

The additional KSh 6,000,000 questioned in relation to car mortgages could have anchored sports development, creative arts initiatives, and cultural enterprises—sectors where youth participation is already strong and impact immediate.

These alternatives are not theoretical. They are practical, tested, and aligned with public interest.

They were simply not chosen.

Accountability Is Not Hostility

Perhaps most concerning is the tone that has increasingly accompanied these debates. Instead of sober engagement, some officials have responded to citizen questions with dismissive remarks, insults, and degrading language. This posture betrays a misunderstanding of public office.

Accountability is not antagonism. Questioning is not disrespect. Citizens do not cease to be stakeholders once ballots are cast.

When leaders grow irritated by scrutiny, it is often because scrutiny threatens comfort.

Vihiga County now stands at a quiet but decisive crossroads. It can continue down a path where public funds serve private ease and political insulation. Or it can choose the harder, more honest work of re-aligning expenditure with public need, particularly the needs of its youth.

This will require more than statements. It will require:

• Transparent resolution of questioned expenditures

• Clear budget lines for youth startup and innovation financing

• Respectful engagement with citizens demanding accountability

• A recognition that leadership is stewardship, not entitlement

Development does not fail loudly. It fails quietly—when opportunities are deferred, when young people are told to wait, and when public money forgets who it belongs to.

Vihiga’s youth have waited long enough.

About Author: Kevin Makova