The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission has pushed back against claims that it is ignoring corruption in Northern Kenya, following public accusations that billions of shillings meant for development in the region have been misappropriated with little accountability.

The exchange has reignited a sensitive national conversation about corruption, regional inequality and whether Kenya’s anti-graft institutions are doing enough to deliver justice that citizens can see and feel.

What Happened

The controversy emerged after senior lawyer Ahmednasir Abdullahi alleged that corruption in Northern Kenya has largely gone unchecked despite massive public investment through devolution, national government allocations and donor funding since 2013. He questioned how the region could continue struggling with underdevelopment if such vast sums had been properly utilized.

In response, the EACC dismissed the claims as misleading. The commission stated that it has not released any report ranking counties by corruption levels and cautioned the public against relying on unofficial narratives circulating online. It maintained that its investigations are guided by law, evidence and public interest rather than regional considerations.

Why This Matters to Kenyans

This debate is not confined to Northern Kenya. For many Kenyans, it reflects a deeper concern about whether accountability in the country matches the scale of corruption that is frequently reported.

Across the country, citizens routinely encounter unfinished roads, under-equipped hospitals and stalled water projects even as public budgets continue to rise. When such gaps persist, suspicion often shifts toward corruption and weak enforcement rather than simple mismanagement.

In historically marginalized regions like Northern Kenya, the stakes are even higher. Development funding is often viewed not only as an economic investment but also as a long-overdue correction to decades of exclusion. When tangible progress remains slow, frustration can quickly take on political overtones.

Perception Versus Institutional Reality

The EACC insists that it follows due process and prioritizes cases based on the value of loss, public impact and the responsibility of those involved. However, for many Kenyans, official statements alone are no longer sufficient to build trust.

Public confidence increasingly depends on visible outcomes such as arrests, prosecutions, asset recovery and convictions. In the absence of these, accusations, even when disputed, tend to gain traction and resonate widely.

The Bigger Question

At the heart of this debate lies a question that affects communities across the country. If trillions of shillings have been spent over more than a decade, why do so many communities still feel left behind and how can anti-corruption institutions more convincingly demonstrate that no region and no individual is beyond scrutiny?

What to Watch Next

Attention is now likely to turn toward whether Parliament or other oversight bodies will demand deeper scrutiny of county spending, whether the EACC will release more transparent data on investigations across regions and whether this public exchange will translate into concrete accountability or fade into yet another cycle of accusation and denial.

Do you believe Kenya’s anti-corruption efforts are effective, or does the country need a more radical approach to accountability? Share your thoughts in the comments.