KNEC must end examiner exploitation by paying people who protect the integrity of KCSE

Every year, the Kenya National Examinations Council (KNEC) presides over a process that can alter the trajectory of hundreds of thousands of young lives. The Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education (KCSE) results determine university entry, scholarship opportunities, training pathways, and in many families, the difference between hope and despair.

Because the stakes are so high, the country expects the examination system to be credible, consistent, and free from manipulation. Yet one of the least discussed threats to that credibility is not cheating by candidates, but the persistent demoralisation of the very professionals tasked with protecting the integrity of the marking process: KNEC examiners.

Examiners are contracted to perform an arduous technical task under intense time pressure. Marking is not simply reading scripts and awarding scores casually. It involves orientation and coordination around a marking scheme, live marking to standardise judgment, constant crosschecking, accurate transferring of marks, capturing and verification of captured marks, adjudication where anomalies arise, and the final confirmation process that effectively closes a script box after all procedures have been satisfied.

Each stage is designed to reduce error and ensure fairness to the candidate. It is a quality-control pipeline, not a clerical afterthought. The public benefits from this rigour, but the rigour is sustained by human labour that must be properly compensated and respected.

Since 2022, many examiners report that KNEC has become increasingly harsh in how it treats contracted staff: low remuneration, prolonged delays in payment, and an atmosphere in which raising legitimate grievances attracts intimidation. These are not minor workplace inconveniences. They are governance failures. A system that depends on the goodwill and professionalism of teachers cannot then treat them as disposable labour. It is morally wrong, administratively careless, and strategically self-defeating.

ALSO READ:

How a school leader living with bipolar disorder affect daily school leadership

The argument that delayed payments are unavoidable does not withstand scrutiny. Marking is not an emergency that surprises the state. It is predictable, scheduled, and budgeted for annually. The Council knows the approximate number of candidates, the likely volume of scripts, the marking centres to be used, and the contracted personnel required.

If a public institution repeatedly delays payments for a routine annual exercise, then one of two things is true: either funds are not being prioritised as they should, or administrative systems are failing. In either case, the burden should not be transferred to the examiner, who has already delivered the service.

The practical consequences of this neglect are serious. Demoralised examiners are more vulnerable to burnout, error, and disengagement. No responsible authority should want a marking environment where professionals feel exploited or uncertain about whether they will be paid. Quality is not produced by threats.

It is produced by fair systems that reward competence and discipline. When coordinators or examiners resort to go-slows, as reportedly happened during the December 2025 marking period, it signals not greed but desperation. When some examiners allegedly leave marking centres without payment, it is not a mere inconvenience. It undermines trust and fuels a perception that the Council treats teachers as a captive workforce.

Even more troubling are claims that examiners who speak out face intimidation and blacklisting, including being quietly removed from future marking duties. If true, that points to an institutional culture that prefers silence over reform. No public institution should be using fear to manage labour disputes, and no professional should have to choose between defending fairness and protecting their livelihood.

ALSO READ:

Kericho widowed mother of 8 appeals for help to educate her children

A marking centre should be governed by procedures, not paranoia. The Council has every right to enforce integrity and confidentiality, but it has no right to suppress legitimate complaints about pay and working conditions through coercion. That approach does not protect the examination system. It stains it.

Relevant authorities should treat this as an urgent public interest issue. KNEC leadership must provide clear, verifiable timelines for payment of all outstanding examiner dues, not vague assurances. The Ministry of Education, the National Treasury, and parliamentary committees responsible for education and public finance should demand accountability.

If the funds were allocated, where are they? If procurement or verification processes are delaying disbursement, why has a routine annual exercise not been streamlined? If payment systems are outdated, why has reform lagged for years? A country that can plan for national examinations can plan to pay the professionals who make the results credible.

The remedy is not complicated, but it requires seriousness. Payment schedules should be communicated in advance and honoured as contractual obligations. Rates should be reviewed transparently to reflect the workload and the inflationary realities teachers face. Dispute-resolution mechanisms should be formalised so that examiners can raise concerns without fear of retaliation. If KNEC believes certain complaints are misinformed, the correct response is documented clarification, not intimidation. Public institutions earn respect when they respond to scrutiny with transparency, not punishment.

Kenyan teachers are not asking for praise. They are asking for fairness. They mark under pressure because they understand what is at stake for the Kenyan learner. They submit to quality controls because they value credibility. The least the state can do is fulfil its side of the bargain on time and in full. There is no moral justification for delaying payment to professionals who have already delivered a national service. There is no administrative excuse for a process that repeats yearly yet fails predictably in the same place.