By Kennedy Buhere
A visit by John Matiang’i, Deputy Director in the Ministry of Education, in Kakamega South and Butere Sub County to assess the status of the implementation of the Secondary Education Quality Improvement Project (SEQIP) in the areas has prompted me to write this article.
The two sub counties are among the 110 sub-counties in 30 Counties whose transition and completion rates of learners from primary to secondary education was below national transition rates.
SEQIP, funded by the government and the World Bank, aims at addressing, among others, the socioeconomic and cultural factors that impede children access, quality education, retention and transition from primary to secondary education in the areas.
During Matiang’i’s visit, he learnt that women from Western region didn’t go into marriages with children they had out of wedlock.
School administrators and officials in the Ministry of Education said a significant number of children who had difficulties attending primary education and later transiting to secondary schools from the area were those born out of wedlock.
Mr. Matiang’i asked where the children’s mothers had gone and she was told their mothers had gotten married and left the children in the hands of the grandparents to take care of them.
He lamented about the act when he reported the team’s finding on return to Nairobi.
Mr. Matiang’i raised fundamental questions about child survival in modern society. The questions strike at the heart of the Children Act Chapter, 2001.
One of the extraordinary features in the Children Act Chapter, 2001, is that it acknowledges and recognizes the rights of children born out of wedlock. The piece of legislation put these children on equal footing as far as their rights and other legitimate interests are concerned. These children have as much rights as those born within marriages recognized by the law.
The law identifies the mother as having parental responsibility at the first instance in the event that the biological father and the child’s mother were not married at the birth of the child.
The ensuing marriage of the mother doesn’t release her from the responsibilities she owes to the child which among others include providing for the education of the child. She cannot run away from the responsibilities she assumed by bearing and giving forth the child—with or without the assistance of the biological father.
There are cases, however, where the father acquires parental responsibility for the child, following the birth of the child. The Children’s Act has provided for circumstances under which such parental responsibility is acquired. A father cannot, at whim, release himself from responsibility once he has assumed parental responsibility for the child(ren). He is responsible, in this context, for the education of the child until the child completes his/her education and training.
Questions of a child languishing at the grandparent’s home because neither parent is available to provide resources necessary for school attendance should not, in ordinary circumstances, arise. The Children’s Act provides protections for such a child.
The Customary Laws in all our indigenous communities protected children born out of wedlock. The Luhya Community is patrilineal (it organizes its family relationships by lines of descent from a person’s male ancestors).
In this context, children belong to fathers. The implication of this familial arrangement is that fathers assume the duty of care of children—right from infancy to adulthood.
By implication, Luhya Customary Law imposed child care responsibilities, particularly the child’s education, to the father. It is the clan of the father that actually educated the child and brought up the child into the ways and habits of the father’s clan.
With or without the Children’s Act, 2001, the Government or its appropriate agencies, can invoke the Customary laws and in this instance, Luhya Customary Law on Child care, to ask biological parents to meet the costs of the education of children born out of wedlock.
It doesn’t matter where the child is. That is a matter foreign to the right of the child to education. The child can be with the maternal grandparents, uncles or whoever. He or she needs protection from the law. His or her entitlements are sacrosanct.
Ancient societies never abandoned children—regardless of whether they were born within or out of wedlock. We have historical and mythological information which demonstrate that children were never abandoned.
There are those children whose birth threatened the powers that be but they were never forsaken. Each society has stories of abandoned children who nevertheless survived the neglect and perfidy of others and became great benefactors to that society or family.
We have the mythical story of Remus and Romulus who were taken care of by a wolf and in time, they founded a Nation—Rome.
In the Bible, Joseph in the Bible was sold but not broken.
Moses wasn’t abandoned just like that. He was put in a basket and placed into River Nile, not with a view to let him drown but to be rescued, and he was rescued.Jesus Christ was rescued from mass killing ordered by King Herod after His parents ran away with him to Egypt. He survived against human mechanizations and gave us a new, all embracing religion—Christianity.
All children belong to God. All children have biological and surrogate parents who should take care of them during their age of vulnerability.
Children whose mothers got married elsewhere have a right to education.
Modern law as well as customary law doesn’t know or care about whether they were born out of wedlock or within a marriage designated by the Statutes. They have a right to education. They ought to be enabled to access education.
Kennedy Buhere is Communications Officer at the Ministry of Education.
