High Court orders creation of national bursary database to curb corruption
“A system that cannot reliably track who has received funding and who has not, and that lacks effective safeguards against political manipulation, cannot be said to fully meet the constitutional standard of openness, accountability, and prudent use of public money,” the court said.
The High Court has directed the government to establish a centralised national database for bursaries and scholarships and develop clear, transparent criteria for allocating education funding, citing systemic weaknesses that it says expose learners to discrimination, duplication of benefits, and corruption risks.
In its judgment, the court found that the current fragmented system—managed through the Ministry of Education, National Government Constituencies Development Fund (NG-CDF), and county governments—lacks a unified mechanism to track beneficiaries or assess need, undermining equitable access to education.
Justice Bahati Mwamuye held that while the existing funding model for basic education is not unconstitutional in itself, key aspects of its implementation violate constitutional provisions on equality, education, and children’s rights.
“The court therefore finds that while the funding model for basic education is not per se unconstitutional, specific aspects of the model as currently implemented raise concerns under Articles 27, 43(1)(f), and 53(1)(b),” the judge said.
The case was filed by former Kiambu Governor Ferdinand Waititu, popularly known as Baba Yao, against the Ministry of Education, Parliament, and the Attorney-General.
He challenged the bursary and scholarship system, arguing that it lacks transparency and fairness, allowing for abuse, corruption, and political patronage.
Waititu told the court that the absence of a centralized database enables some students to benefit from multiple funding streams while equally needy learners are left out.
He also cited Auditor-General reports highlighting mismanagement of bursary funds across several constituencies.
He further argued that unlike basic education, tertiary education benefits from a more structured and centralized funding system, including the Higher Education Loans Board (HELB), Universities Fund, and Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) Fund, which operate under clearer legal frameworks.
“The financing of basic education is fragmented, opaque, and politically susceptible,” he submitted, warning that vulnerable learners are often disadvantaged.
The Ministry of Education defended the current framework, stating that the government has taken steps to improve access to education through capitation grants for free primary and secondary education, junior secondary funding, scholarships, and affirmative action programmes for marginalized learners.
The ministry also cited investments in school infrastructure, school feeding programmes, and recruitment of teachers.
However, the court ruled that these measures do not adequately address concerns over transparency, accountability, and fairness in distribution.
“A system that cannot reliably track who has received funding and who has not, and that lacks effective safeguards against political manipulation, cannot be said to fully meet the constitutional standard of openness, accountability, and prudent use of public money,” the court said.
The judges further relied on Auditor-General findings presented in court, which pointed to significant irregularities in bursary management across constituencies. In some cases, millions of shillings disbursed through NG-CDF bursary committees could not be properly accounted for.
The court cited examples including Kilifi South, where bursary records reportedly lacked supporting documentation for Kshs 25 million, and Ikolomani, where Kshs 31 million was allegedly disbursed without properly completed application forms.
“These are not isolated incidents; they point to systemic weaknesses in accountability and oversight,” the court noted.
The court also faulted the structure of the Constituency Oversight Committee under the NG-CDF Act, saying it gives Members of Parliament excessive control over appointments, thereby weakening checks and balances.
It observed that MPs appointing all other committee members creates a risk of political influence over bursary distribution, particularly since education support is a valuable resource that can be used for patronage.
“While the Court recognizes that the NG-CDF has provided important support for education, the concentration of appointment power in a single elected official creates a real risk of patronage and political manipulation,” the judgment stated.
The court directed the State to implement both legislative and administrative reforms, including the creation of a centralised database and standardised needs-assessment framework, to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in the allocation of education funds.
