He referred to the time when the Nairobi Metropolitan Services (NMS) was established under the leadership of Major General Mohamed Badi.
The NMS was formed after key county functions were transferred from the elected governor’s office to the national government.
At the time, the move was presented as a way to restore order and improve service delivery in the capital.
Kuria now says that such arrangements have left Nairobi in a state of uncertainty.
He mentioned that even after the NMS period, the city has continued to experience what he described as indirect control from outside the elected county leadership.
He cited Prime Cabinet Secretary Musalia Mudavadi in his remarks, suggesting that Nairobi cannot continue operating under what he termed as “permanent receivership.”
Using strong language, Kuria said, “At some point we have to decide whether Nairobi should be under an elected or appointed Governor.
From Badi’s NMC to Musalia Mudavadi, we cannot keep Nairobi permanently under receivership. We have to agree on bringing in a liquidator now.”
His comments have raised eyebrows, especially the suggestion of bringing in a “liquidator,” a term commonly used in business when a company is being wound up due to insolvency.
While Kuria did not explain exactly what he meant, his choice of words has fueled speculation about the seriousness of the governance challenges facing the capital.
Political observers say Kuria’s remarks reflect growing frustration over service delivery and leadership wrangles that have characterized Nairobi County over the years.
From leadership disputes to budget concerns and stalled projects, the city has often found itself at the center of national political drama.
Supporters of an appointed leadership model argue that Nairobi, being the capital city and economic hub, requires a stable and technocratic management system insulated from constant political battles.