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 peacefulcoexistence, national unity, and reconciliation across Kenya by addressing ethnic conflicts, fosteringdialogue and building social harmony.

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

As a statutory institution, it draws its existence from the National Dialogue and ReconciliationAgreement signed in Nairobi on February 1, 2008, by the government, Party ofNational Unity and Orange Democratic Movementdelegations, and witnessed by KofiAnnan for the Panel of Eminent African Personalities.

This agreement formed the basis of theNational Accord that President Mwai Kibaki and the Prime Minister Raila Odingasigned 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, theresults were disputed.

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

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

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

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

Effortswere made through the presidential working committee to align it to the overall education policy. Butthe challenges remained embedded since it had been rushed in its implementation and some of thedifficulties could not be addressed administratively. It is therefore not surprising that parents andministry officials found themselves faced with inconsistencies in outcomes of the placement of the Grade10 students.

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

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

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

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

As theparents struggled to settle their children in schools across the country, some political leaders decided tomake inflammatory remarks aimed at inciting tribal animosity among the citizens. These publicpronouncements, 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 theeducation sector but also on national stability.

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

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

The second bit is when he soughtto blame the leaders of the Northeastern region for the relative underdevelopment of the area. Heparticularly 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 forlack 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, heconveniently avoids telling the true story of how the schools came to be. Most of these schools are publicand have long been categorised as national. This status demanded and allowed the government to accordthese 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 offeringsimilar services. Kenyans must not forget that strategy fell in place with the previous governmentdevelopment policies that focused on investing in high-potential economic zones.

It was anticipatedthere 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 ofnational schools in the Mt Kenya region.

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

It should be noted that even the extra-county schools were demanded to admit certainquotas from outside their county of establishment. That explains why although Nyanza for a long timehad 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 reasonthat many ordinary Kenyans in public and private service would ignore the tensions among the politicalleaders and proceed with their daily chores unbothered.

In the same vein, business ventures would beconceived 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 broughtdownAmbrose Ofafa in 1953 through brutal assassination. Gachagua’s statements are intended forpolitical 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 prepareto confront the worst ever atrocities committed against children.

They will wake up one morning duringthe election period to find that schools in central Kenya were invaded in the middle of the night byhooded 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 majesticallywalked away. It would be too late to redeem any shame except to soothe the wounds through anaesthetictruth, compensation and justice committees.

Yet the drums are being beaten early enough. It is onlylogical that the conceivers of this plan are making the necessary arrangements and correspondinglogistics.

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