Guarding Faith: Why schools must obey the law on religious attire

In Kenya, the question of religious dressing in schools is no longer a matter of preference, tradition, or administrative mood. It is a matter of constitutional obligation and direct policy instruction from the Ministry of Education. The Ministry’s directives, firmly anchored in the Constitution of Kenya (2010), leave no room for ambiguity: religious expression through dress is a protected right in all basic education institutions.

At the centre of this protection is Article 32 of the Constitution, which guarantees every person freedom of conscience, religion, belief, and opinion — including the right to manifest that religion through practice and observance. Religious clothing is not ornamental. For many believers, it is obedience to divine instruction, a covenantal identity, or a sacred discipline. When a school interferes with that expression without lawful justification, it is not enforcing uniformity — it is infringing constitutional rights.

Article 27 strengthens this protection by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion. No learner may be denied admission, suspended, punished, or excluded from school activities because of religious attire. Article 53 further protects the best interests of the child, including the right to education. A school uniform policy cannot override the supreme law of the land.

Recognising persistent disputes in schools, the Ministry of Education issued firm directives in March 2022 addressing what it termed violations of religious rights in learning institutions. The Ministry instructed County Directors of Education, Boards of Management, and school heads to ensure full compliance with constitutional guarantees.

The Ministry’s directives are clear and uncompromising.

First, no learner should be sent home, denied admission, or disciplined for wearing religious attire. This directive was issued after several reported cases where learners had been excluded over dress-related disagreements. The Ministry made it explicit that such actions amount to discrimination.

ALSO READ:

Emuhaya MP to table Motion to rescue struggling C3,C4 schools from closure

Second, schools must permit religious clothing and symbols as legitimate expressions of faith, provided they do not pose genuine safety or identification concerns. Uniform regulations must be applied reasonably and flexibly. Administrative convenience is not a lawful excuse for violating constitutional rights.

Third, learners must not be compelled to participate in religious practices, activities, or dress codes that contradict their beliefs. Religious freedom protects both the right to express one’s faith and the right not to be forced into another.

Fourth, these directives apply to all basic education institutions — public and private alike. Faith-sponsored schools may maintain their institutional ethos, but they operate within national law and must respect constitutional protections.

The Ministry’s pronouncements have highlighted specific types of clothing that fall under protection, though the principle extends to all sincerely held religious observances.

For Muslim learners, protected attire includes the hijab (headscarf), khimar, jilbab, abaya, and in some circumstances the niqab — subject to reasonable identity verification procedures. These garments reflect modesty obligations rooted in religious doctrine and cannot be arbitrarily banned.

For Sikh learners, the dastar (turban) is a mandatory article of faith. Removing it is not a minor adjustment; it is a violation of religious duty. Sikh learners may also wear the kara (steel bracelet) and maintain uncut hair (kesh), which are constitutionally protected expressions of belief.

For members of the Akorino Christian community, white turbans and veils are integral to religious identity. Schools may coordinate uniform colours but cannot prohibit the head covering itself.

For Hindu learners, tilak markings, bindis, sacred threads (janeyu), and modest attire requirements are recognised manifestations of faith.

ALSO READ:

Publishers whose titles made it to the KICD Senior School setbooks shortlist have Exceeded Expectations

For Jewish learners, the kippah (skullcap) and modest dress traditions fall within the same constitutional protection.

For adherents of African Traditional Religions, religious beads, symbolic garments, or hairstyles associated with rites of passage may equally qualify as protected expressions when sincerely connected to belief.

The guiding principle is equality. The Constitution does not rank religions by size, influence, or familiarity. A minority faith enjoys the same protection as a majority one. Whether a learner’s religious attire is common or rare, visible or subtle, it is shielded by the same constitutional umbrella.

Of course, rights are not absolute. Article 24 allows limitations where they are reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society. Schools may regulate attire for safety, hygiene, or identification purposes. However, any limitation must be lawful, proportionate, and demonstrably necessary — not based on discomfort, bias, or institutional rigidity.

The overall position of the Ministry of Education is therefore unmistakable: discipline and diversity are not enemies. Schools may insist on order, but they cannot demand religious conformity. Uniformity in dress must not translate into uniformity of belief.

In a pluralistic nation such as Kenya, the school gate must never become a checkpoint for faith identity. The Ministry’s directives reaffirm a powerful truth: education thrives not by suppressing difference, but by respecting it within the framework of law.

Religious attire — whether hijab, turban, veil, tilak, kippah, beads, or other sacred symbols — is not rebellion. It is constitutional expression. And in Kenya, constitutional expression is not negotiable.

By Hillary Muhalya