County governments are struggling to keep track of millions of shillings issued to officials as cash advances, exposing weaknesses in financial controls and raising questions about how public money is monitored after it leaves county coffers.
Audit reports for the 2023/24 and 2024/25 financial years show that more than Sh500 million in county imprests was either unaccounted for, overdue or affected by weaknesses in record keeping and oversight.
Imprests are cash advances given to county officials to meet expenses incurred while carrying out official duties.
Under the Public Finance Management (County Governments) Regulations, 2015, officers are required to surrender temporary imprests within seven working days after completing the assignment for which the money was issued. The regulations also prohibit officers from receiving fresh imprests before accounting for previous advances.
Yet findings by Auditor-General Nancy Gathungu show that these controls are not consistently being followed across counties.
ALSO READ:Waiguru Tops Politrack Governors’ Performance Index as Agriculture, Health and Water Drive Rankings
The problem starts with tracking
In the 2023/24 financial year, 12 counties failed to account for imprests totalling Sh230 million.
Turkana recorded the highest amount at Sh85 million, followed by Samburu at Sh39.3 million, Mombasa at Sh25.8 million, Bungoma at Sh21.6 million and Tana River at Sh19.8 million.
Other counties included Embu at Sh12.8 million, Siaya and Nandi at Sh6.3 million each, Kisumu at Sh5.1 million, Nyandarua at Sh3 million, Busia at Sh1.3 million and Kiambu at Sh801,440.
The figures do not necessarily mean that all the money was stolen, rather, they point to a more fundamental problem: counties are sometimes unable to demonstrate that advances were properly surrendered, supported and recorded.
The Auditor-General found that some county executives had failed to maintain imprest registers containing basic information such as the recipient, amount issued, warrant number, date of issue, due date and date of surrender.
Without complete and up-to-date records, county treasuries can struggle to determine which officers still owe public funds and whether advances were used for their intended purposes.
The Auditor-General said failure to maintain the registers was contrary to Regulation 93(4) of the Public Finance Management (County Governments) Regulations, 2015.
Officers receiving fresh advances
The audit findings also reveal instances where county officers received additional imprests before accounting for previous advances.
In Isiolo, for example, two officers received multiple imprests totalling Sh8.4 million without surrendering earlier advances.
One officer received Sh1.1 million, while another received Sh7.3 million.Auditors questioned why the officers were allowed to receive additional advances before clearing the earlier amounts.
The county also issued a Sh4 million temporary imprest to support a 14-day Garbatulla land adjudication exercise and the issuance of allotment letters.
The money was issued to county employees and national government land officers involved in the exercise, but the audit raised questions over the management of the funds.
ALSO READ: How did Kiambu double its own-source revenue without increasing taxes?
Similar weaknesses were identified elsewhere
In Embu, overdue imprests amounting to Sh21.8 million issued between July 2023 and June 2025 had not been surrendered or accounted for. Auditors also found officers holding multiple imprests.
Machakos had overdue imprests worth Sh3.6 million out of Sh104.7 million issued to staff during the period under review.
In Siaya, some temporary imprests remained unsurrendered for a year after their due dates, while Kakamega had outstanding imprests amounting to Sh18.3 million.Samburu also had overdue imprests worth Sh1.3 million that had not been recovered.
When records fail, accountability becomes difficult
The problem extends beyond individual officers failing to surrender money on time.
In Uasin Gishu, the imprest register had not been updated, making it difficult for auditors to establish whether officers had surrendered advances within the required period.
Nandi had incomplete imprest records, while Kiambu had issued standing imprests totalling Sh1 million to departments for the procurement of donor items and printing materials.
The findings point to weaknesses at several stages of the imprest process from approval and issuance to recording, monitoring, surrender and recovery.
For county governments, this creates a gap in the accountability chain.
Once money is issued to an officer, the county should be able to track it until the advance is fully accounted for or recovered.
Where that trail is incomplete, it becomes harder to establish whether public funds were used for their intended purpose.
The bigger county governance question
The imprest findings raise a wider question about the strength of internal controls within devolved governments.
Counties have introduced financial management systems and regulations to improve accountability, but audit findings continue to show gaps in implementation.
The issue is therefore not simply how much money remains outstanding. It is whether county governments have effective systems for ensuring that every shilling advanced to an officer can be traced from the point of issue to the final expenditure.
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission has previously warned that imprests are among the areas vulnerable to abuse in both national and county governments.
EACC chief executive Abdi Mohamud said the commission was investigating cases involving fictitious cash advances and expenditure claims that lacked supporting documents.
“Imprest is one of the most abused public resources, in both national and county governments,” Mohamud said.
For residents, the concern goes beyond accounting records
Every imprest is drawn from a public budget. When advances remain outstanding or cannot be properly traced, county governments risk weakening public confidence in how resources allocated for services are being managed.
The audit findings suggest that strengthening imprest controls does not necessarily require new rules. Counties already have regulations governing the issuance and surrender of advances.
The bigger challenge is enforcing those rules.
That means maintaining accurate imprest registers, preventing officers from receiving new advances before clearing old ones, recovering overdue amounts and ensuring that county accounting officers act on audit queries.
Leave a Reply