KANYADUDI: NCIC inaction dangerous as Gachagua alleges bias in school placement

                                                                                                                         DCP leader Rigathi Gachagua /FILE

The National Cohesion and Integration Commission plays a vital role in promoting peaceful coexistence, national unity, and reconciliation across Kenya by addressing ethnic conflicts, fostering dialogue and building social harmony.

The commission was borne out of the realisation that long-lasting peace, sustainable development and harmonious coexistence require deliberate normative, institutional and attitudinal processes of constructing nationhood, national cohesion and integration.

As a statutory institution, it draws its existence from the National Dialogue and Reconciliation Agreement signed in Nairobi on February 1, 2008, by the government, Party of National Unity and Orange Democratic Movement delegations, and witnessed by Kofi Annan for the Panel of Eminent African Personalities.

This agreement formed the basis of the National Accord that President Mwai Kibaki and the Prime Minister Raila Odinga signed on February 28, 2008 when the dialogue was officially launched.

The country had just witnessed one of its worst violent civil conflicts in its history since Independence. The 2007 presidential elections had been run on the mantra of one against 47 and, unfortunately, the results were disputed.

Coming hot in the heels of the 2005 constitutional referendum, the nation was highly polarised along ethnic lines. In the grassroots and local communities, there were organised criminal gangs that operated on mafia principles.

Aggrieved political leaders took advantage of these ragtag thugs to rain terror on their opponents. It became messier and uglier when the elections benefited from inflammatory remarks by tribal bigots.

Aware that Kenyans are human beings, the threat of recurrence of such was envisaged and that is the reason the commission was established. This was to forestall the same horrors by establishing proactive unity programmes and taking criminal discipline against perpetrators.

When the government rolled out the placement of KJSEA candidates into Grade 10 at senior secondary schools, many challenges arose. As a new system, this was not unexpected. It will be recalled that when the Kenya Kwanza administration took over, the Competency-Based Curriculum was still reeling from its teething problems.

Efforts were made through the presidential working committee to align it to the overall education policy. But the challenges remained embedded since it had been rushed in its implementation and some of the difficulties could not be addressed administratively. It is therefore not surprising that parents and ministry officials found themselves faced with inconsistencies in outcomes of the placement of the Grade 10 students.

Many parents complained that their children did not get the schools they chose during the examinations. After deep analysis, it happens the stories were only half true. While most candidates did not get into their schools of top choice, the facts are that most placements were based on other choices made.

The disappointment was largely because many failed to be placed in the schools of their first choice. The government responded promptly by allowing the candidates to revise their choices, where chances allowed and to be admitted to the schools of their choice.

Parents thronged schools to seek admission for their children in their preferred institutions.  The confusion caused a lot of pressure and stress for school principals and lasted until Friday when the release of KCSE exam results partially shifted public attention. Certain members of the public took advantage of the crisis to make social capital.

Where others offered suggestions and constructive criticism to improve the system, some chose to focus on the shortcomings to crucify the government. The opposition forces found a perfect opportunity to extract their pound of flesh. The worrying part is that some key leaders chose to drag negative politics into a serious national development agenda.

As the parents struggled to settle their children in schools across the country, some political leaders decided to make inflammatory remarks aimed at inciting tribal animosity among the citizens. These public pronouncements, if left unchallenged, risk making the country ungovernable and resulting in civil strife.

The logical consequence of these reckless utterances would be catastrophic impact not only on the education sector but also on national stability.

The worst of these remarks have been associated with former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua. Gachagua has been associated with two controversial public statements. In the first instance, he claimed that non-residents were being brought to their better, Mt Kenya schools, thereby denying opportunities to their sons and daughters of the mountain.

He claimed the Ministry of Education was intentionally allocating their Mt Kenya children placement in schools in far-flung and least developed regions. He called this a deliberate policy by the government to disinherit them Mt Kenya parents and children from their investments made painstakingly over the years.

The second bit is when he sought to blame the leaders of the Northeastern region for the relative underdevelopment of the area. He particularly demanded that their students should attend schools exclusively in their region and not outside.

Derisively, he said that Kenyans of Somali extraction should vacate Eastleigh and South C and relocate their business investments to Mandera, Wajir, Garissa and Marsabit. He blames the governors and MPs for lack of good educational institutions for their children. He rightly points out that Mt Kenya region has some of the best schools in the country.

However, he conveniently avoids telling the true story of how the schools came to be. Most of these schools are public and have long been categorised as national. This status demanded and allowed the government to accord these schools preferential treatment. They were given extraordinary resources in terms of infrastructure, human and financial assets.

Their budgetary allocation in annual capitation has been way above the extra-county schools and below. None of them ever complained of inadequate teaching and support staffing.

Low staffing is a perennial challenge always raised by the teachers’ unions. The national government has therefore deliberately made disproportionate investment in these institutions compared to others offering similar services. Kenyans must not forget that strategy fell in place with the previous government development policies that focused on investing in high-potential economic zones.

It was anticipated there would be trickle down effects, as aptly elucidated in the 1965 Sessional Paper No. 1. This policy, together with the existence of the colonial white highlands, ended up concentrating the highest number of national schools in the Mt Kenya region.

The national schools, including those outside central Kenya, were expected to foster national integration and patriotism. Thus, a policy was established that demanded that they admit students from each of the country’s districts at the time. This was to ensure that the ethnic heritages of the young men and women from different areas were showcased as pillars of national unity and strength and not bastions of tribal chauvinism.

It should be noted that even the extra-county schools were demanded to admit certain quotas from outside their county of establishment. That explains why although Nyanza for a long time had only Maseno and Kisii as national schools, there are many prominent people from outside that region who attended high school in the second- and third-tier schools in the region. The successive independent

Kenya governments consciously made education a critical tool for national unity. It is for this reason that many ordinary Kenyans in public and private service would ignore the tensions among the political leaders and proceed with their daily chores unbothered.

In the same vein, business ventures would be conceived and conducted by people from different ethnic backgrounds without much fuss.

Gachagua is rewinding the hand of clock and taking us back to the historical ruckus that brought down Ambrose Ofafa in 1953 through brutal assassination. Gachagua’s statements are intended for political mobilisation but are reckless. They must be seen for what they truly are: tribal incitement that

will logically lead to civil strife. If he does not demobilise his tribal armies, then Kenyans should prepare to confront the worst ever atrocities committed against children.

They will wake up one morning during the election period to find that schools in central Kenya were invaded in the middle of the night by hooded gangsters. That students had been earlier on neatly profiled in terms of tribe and bed occupation.

Specific horrendous assaults would have been targeted at non-Kikuyus and the perpetrators majestically walked away. It would be too late to redeem any shame except to soothe the wounds through anaesthetic truth, compensation and justice committees.

Yet the drums are being beaten early enough. It is only logical that the conceivers of this plan are making the necessary arrangements and corresponding logistics.

The NCIC stands accused of abdicating their most important responsibility for the children of this country. However, if there are concrete steps that they have taken to stop the vengeful political mobilisation by Gachagua through regional balkanisation, then they must publicly share what they have done and the actions they plan to negate his dangerous undermining of national unity.