- Politicians have been urged to keep off school tendering processes, with the piece arguing that supporting schools is not the same as controlling their procurement decisions.
- Heads of institutions have been described as often sidelined from oversight of construction projects within their own schools, despite being held accountable when those projects fail.
- TSC and MoE officers have been called upon to resist political pressure and protect their professional independence when handling institutional matters.
How would politicians feel if heads of learning institutions were allowed to control the finances and development programmes falling under their political jurisdictions? Imagine a headteacher deciding which constituency project should be prioritised, a school principal determining which contractor should undertake a ward development project, or a Ministry of Education officer walking into a political office and demanding that a particular supplier be given a public contract. The answer would almost certainly be no, and that is precisely the point. Institutional boundaries must work both ways. If politicians expect their constitutional and administrative mandates to be respected, they must equally respect the lawful mandates of school heads, Boards of Management, the Teachers Service Commission and Ministry of Education officers.
This is not an argument for giving heads of institutions unchecked control over public finances. It is an argument for professional autonomy within the law, backed by accountability and transparent oversight. Kenya’s learning institutions cannot be effectively managed when their professional leaders are continually suffocated by political pressure, wealthy individuals, contractors and other influential interests.
One area where this problem becomes particularly visible is construction. Schools need classrooms, laboratories, libraries, dormitories, dining facilities, sanitation blocks and other essential infrastructure, and these projects consume public resources that therefore demand transparency, competition, accountability and value for money. Politicians have every right to advocate for better school infrastructure, lobby for resources, mobilise communities, inspect publicly funded projects and demand accountability. But there is a fundamental difference between supporting a school and controlling its procurement. The moment a politician or influential individual begins demanding that a particular contractor must receive a tender, legitimate interest becomes interference. A learning institution should never become a marketplace where political connections determine who gets public contracts. A tender is not a political reward; it is a public procurement process that should be governed by the applicable law and institutional procedures.
A particularly troubling situation arises when a head of institution is expected to account for a construction project over which they have had little meaningful involvement, watching as a contractor arrives, work begins, materials are delivered, and a structure rises, while the head is left observing events rather than exercising appropriate professional oversight. A head responsible for the day-to-day running of an institution should have appropriate knowledge of projects being implemented within it, understanding the educational need for the project, its location, approved specifications, implementation schedule and mechanisms for monitoring quality. This does not mean the head should personally award a tender where the law assigns that responsibility elsewhere; it means the person expected to manage the institution should not be deliberately isolated from major developments taking place within it. If a project is poorly constructed, learners suffer. If it is delayed, teaching and learning suffer. If it is unnecessary, scarce resources are wasted. If public money is lost, taxpayers suffer, and when questions arise, the institution is left to deal with the consequences.
ALSO READ:
From classroom to cockpit: Captain Kerubo returns to Londiani Girls by helicopter 15 years later
Kenya must also stop measuring educational development simply by the number of buildings constructed. A new classroom, laboratory or dormitory is not automatically a successful project or good value for money. The real test is whether the facility was necessary, properly designed, properly constructed, completed within reasonable timelines, fit for purpose and beneficial to learners. Haphazardly executed construction can create expensive liabilities, poor workmanship creates future repair costs, delayed projects disrupt learning, wrongly prioritised projects divert scarce resources, and substandard facilities can compromise safety. The education sector does not need impressive photographs of half-completed projects; it needs infrastructure that works, and that requires proper planning, professional oversight, transparent procurement and effective quality assurance.
There is another uncomfortable reality that must be confronted: some people appear to define “good governance” according to whether they personally benefit from institutional procurement. When they receive a tender, the institution is suddenly praised as transparent, competent and well managed; when they lose the tender, the same institution is accused of corruption, incompetence or bad governance. That is not good governance; it is self-interest disguised as accountability. Good governance cannot be measured by whether a particular contractor, politician, wealthy individual or business interest has benefited from a learning institution. The real test is whether the institution followed the law, protected public resources, applied transparent procedures, obtained value for money and acted in the best interests of learners. The right questions are whether the process was lawful, transparent and fair, whether value for money was achieved, and whether the project served the needs of the institution and learners, not who got the tender. If someone believes a procurement process was compromised, the answer is evidence, investigation and due process, not political intimidation or pressure against the head of the institution.
Boards of Management have an important governance role, working with heads of institutions to safeguard resources, support development and advance the welfare of learners. But governance should never become a gateway through which external interests capture institutional resources. A Board should not become an instrument for a politician, contractor, businessman or influential individual to dictate who receives construction opportunities, and equally, a head of institution must not use a Board to circumvent lawful processes. Everyone must operate within their mandate; good governance means checks and balances, not competing power centres.
The authority of a head of institution should derive from applicable education laws, regulations, policies and legitimate governance structures. It should not depend on whether a politician likes the head, whether a wealthy parent approves, whether a contractor has powerful friends, or who can make the most intimidating telephone call. A professional head must be able to make a professional decision without fearing retaliation. If a head refuses to violate the rules, that should be regarded as professional courage, not disobedience.
The problem does not stop at the school gate. When political or personal pressure travels through the education bureaucracy, the integrity of the entire system is threatened. The Teachers Service Commission and Ministry of Education are professional institutions whose officers carry responsibilities that directly affect teachers, institutions and learners. They should not become telephone operators for powerful people, should not be sent to intimidate heads who have refused to bend rules, should not be expected to convert political instructions into administrative orders, and should not become rubber stamps for decisions that contradict the law, established procedures or professional judgement. Where a head or an officer violates the law, appropriate professional mechanisms should take their course, but where a professional is simply refusing to compromise standards, the system should protect that professional.
Imagine school heads being allowed to control the finances and development programmes falling under political jurisdictions, deciding which community project should receive funding, which contractor should undertake a constituency development project, or insisting a particular supplier be favoured. Political leaders would rightly argue that different institutions have different mandates, laws and accountability structures. That same principle must apply to learning institutions. If politicians expect their mandates to be respected, they should respect the mandates of heads of institutions and education professionals. If a head has lawful authority over a particular administrative responsibility, allow the head to exercise it. If a Board has a governance responsibility, allow it to govern. If a procurement committee has a legal responsibility, let it follow the procurement framework. If TSC has a mandate, let its officers exercise it professionally. If the Ministry has an oversight responsibility, let it provide lawful oversight, and if an auditor identifies irregularities, let the appropriate accountability mechanisms take their course.
Politicians have an important role in education, but supporting a school is not the same as controlling it. A politician should not become the unofficial procurement officer of a school, a wealthy individual should not become its unofficial head, a contractor should not become its unofficial decision-maker, and no education officer should be forced to surrender professional judgement to political pressure. No politician should be bigger than the school. No contractor should be bigger than the procurement system. No wealthy individual should be bigger than the institution.
This is not a demand for unchecked power for heads of institutions. Heads must be accountable, Boards must provide oversight, procurement must follow the law, TSC and Ministry officers must comply with their mandates, auditors must scrutinise expenditure, and investigators must act when wrongdoing occurs. But accountability and professional autonomy must exist together. Autonomy without accountability is dangerous, but accountability without autonomy is equally dangerous. Oversight asks whether the law was followed, whether public money was properly used, whether value for money was achieved, and whether the project was completed according to specification. Interference asks why a tender wasn’t given to a preferred person. Kenya must learn to distinguish between the two.
The solution is straightforward: give heads the authority to lead, give Boards the authority to govern, give procurement structures the independence to follow the law, give TSC and Ministry officers the professional space to perform their mandates, give auditors the authority to scrutinise, and give investigators the authority to act where wrongdoing occurs, then hold everyone accountable. The answer to misuse of resources is stronger oversight, not political capture. The answer to procurement concerns is evidence and due process, not intimidation. The answer to weak institutional management is better systems, not powerful individuals taking over.
At the centre of this entire debate is someone who rarely gets a seat at the table: the learner. The learner does not care who made the telephone call, which politician supported which contractor, or which influential individual wanted a particular tender. The learner wants a safe classroom, a functioning laboratory, a decent library, clean sanitation, adequate learning materials, competent teachers, and an institution managed in their best interests. Every shilling lost through manipulation is a shilling that could have improved learning, every poorly constructed facility is a burden placed on learners, and every compromised professional officer weakens institutional integrity.
ALSO READ: PCEA’s Sh700 million Milele Beach Hotel debt: Why should struggling congregants pay for decisions they didn’t make?
Individuals come and go, but institutions must survive. Kenya needs heads who can lead without fear, Boards that can govern without being captured, TSC and Ministry officers who can exercise professional judgement without becoming stooges of powerful interests, procurement systems that reward competence, transparency and value for money, and political leaders who understand that supporting education is not the same as controlling it. The real measure of governance is whether the institution has acted lawfully, transparently and in the best interests of learners. Let politicians advocate, let Boards govern, let professionals administer, let procurement follow the law, let auditors audit, let contractors compete fairly, let stakeholders participate responsibly, and above all, let heads of institutions lead.
Because the ultimate question is not who got the tender. It is whether the institution got value, whether the learner benefited, and whether the law was respected. That is the governance standard Kenya’s education sector must defend. Respect institutional boundaries. Respect professional mandates. Respect the law. And above all, put the learner before the tender, the institution before the individual, and the law before influence.
By Hillary Muhalya
Get more stories from our website: Education News
To write to us or offer feedback, you can reach us at: editor@educationnews.co.ke
You can also follow our social media pages on Twitter: Education News KE and Facebook: Education News Newspaper for timely updates.
>>> Click here to stay up-to-date with trending regional stories
