As Nairobi Governor Johnson Sakaja intensifies his purge against county officials linked to corruption investigations, one question continues to dominate political conversations within City Hall corridors: Why has Chief Officer for Finance Asha Abdi remained untouched?
The suspension of Urban Planning Chief Officer Patrick Analo following investigations by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) was widely viewed as a bold step in the fight against graft. Yet while officers in other departments face scrutiny, the Finance Department—the nerve centre of Nairobi County’s operations—appears insulated from the ongoing clean-up.
For many observers, the situation has elevated Asha Abdi into what critics describe as the “sacred cow” of City Hall. The Finance Department has for years found itself at the centre of questions surrounding procurement, payments, pending bills, revenue collection, budget implementation, and expenditure management. Successive administrations have faced accusations from contractors, MCAs, civil society groups, and oversight agencies over how public resources are managed.
Despite these recurring concerns, the department’s accounting leadership has remained firmly intact. Asha Abdi occupies perhaps the most powerful bureaucratic position within Nairobi County Government. As Chief Officer for Finance, she oversees the department responsible for authorising and coordinating critical financial processes. Virtually every major county transaction, from supplier payments and budget execution to revenue administration and financial reporting, passes through structures under her watch.
Political analysts argue that unlike other chief officers, the Finance Chief Officer sits at the centre of the county’s financial ecosystem. Any disruption within the department could potentially affect salaries, procurement processes, development projects, supplier payments, and overall county operations. This may partly explain why Governor Sakaja finds himself in a difficult position.
While officers in technical departments can be suspended and replaced with limited disruption, changes within the finance docket carry far-reaching implications for the administration’s day-to-day functioning. Touching the department could have significant operational and political consequences.
Questions surrounding the department, however, have not disappeared. In recent years, critics of the Sakaja administration have repeatedly raised concerns regarding financial management and procurement practices. Abdi has publicly defended the county’s financial records and insisted that all processes are above board and accountable. She has maintained that critics should rely on facts rather than political rhetoric when evaluating the county’s performance.
The dilemma facing Sakaja is therefore both political and administrative. Suspending officials in departments such as Urban Planning sends a strong anti-corruption message to the public. However, touching the Finance Department would amount to entering the engine room of county government itself.
Critics argue that if accountability is to be applied consistently, scrutiny should not stop at departments currently under investigation. Supporters of the administration, on the other hand, contend that no action should be taken against any officer without credible evidence and due process.
As City Hall’s anti-corruption purge gathers momentum, attention is increasingly shifting from those who have already fallen to those who continue to occupy the most influential offices. In that conversation, one name continues to dominate the debate: Asha Abdi.
Whether she is ultimately vindicated or subjected to further scrutiny may determine whether Sakaja’s clean-up exercise is viewed as a comprehensive war on corruption or merely a selective political operation.
Asha and Kerich have previously on the spot over audit findings on the mysterious Sh151 million “NCC Imprest Operations Account” which raised serious questions about financial governance at Nairobi City County and could become one of the most significant accountability issues facing Governor Johnson Sakaja’s administration.
According to the Auditor-General’s report for the financial year ending June 2025, the account was opened in November 2024 without evidence of the legally required approvals, and auditors could not establish who authorized it, who the signatories were, or why it existed.
The audit shows that Sh98.1 million was deposited into the account in November 2024, followed by another Sh53.5 million in January 2025, leaving a balance of approximately Sh151.7 million. Auditors reportedly found no cash books, bank reconciliation statements, invoices, contracts, or supporting documentation linking the funds to legitimate county transactions.
The account was also described as an expenditure account that only received revenue, an arrangement auditors found difficult to explain.
The findings are particularly significant because county governments are required to operate under strict public finance regulations.
The Auditor-General questioned the legality of the account’s establishment and the absence of documentation necessary to verify the source and purpose of the funds.
The matter adds to a broader pattern of audit concerns at City Hall. The same audit report reportedly flagged:
Sh16.4 million in foreign travel expenditures lacking supporting documentation.
More than Sh7.2 million allegedly spent on a Singapore training programme without evidence such as tickets, visas, insurance records, or procurement documents and Sh16 million in unsupported receivables.
Weak controls over county financial management systems.
Politically, the revelation is likely to intensify scrutiny of senior finance officials, particularly those responsible for authorizing and overseeing county accounts.
The Nairobi County Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee has already summoned county officials to explain the audit findings. Committee chair Chege Mwaura said the hearings are intended to help residents understand how public funds are being managed and whether accountability measures were followed.
Investigators are still working to establish whether the account was deliberately concealed from official records or used to bypass public finance controls.
The matter attracted the attention of agencies such as the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and the Office of the Auditor-General for possible criminal and administrative investigations.
The central unanswered question remains: who authorized the account, who controlled it, and what was the intended purpose of the Sh151 million that flowed into it? The audit says those answers were not provided to investigators.