This is after the Employment and Labour Relations Court sitting in Nairobi declined to issue orders stopping its implementation.
Justice David Nderitu declined to issue an injunction against the Teachers Development Program implementation that were being sought by education consultant, Joseph Karanja.
Karanja had petitioned the court to block the implementation of the directive until the teachers’ employer carries out a public consultation with all the stakeholders in the education sector.
â€œThe rollout of the program by TSC was done in secrecy and without the involvement of the teachers, who are the primary subjects of the program,â€ argued Nderitu in his petition.
The petition was certified as urgent and will be heard on October 7.
Justice Nderitu noted that the issues raised by Karanja were weighty and hence all the parties must be served including the TSC, the Education Cabinet Secretary, Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT), Kenya Union of Post Primary Education (KUPPET), and the four Universities recruited by teachers’ employer.
TSC CEO, Nancy Macharia, announced that they had verified and certified the four institutions selected to offer the training services. The institutions include Kenyatta University, Riara University, Mount Kenya University, and the Kenya Education Management Institute (KEMI).
â€œThe petitioner is ordered to serve the pleading on all the parties for the hearing of the said notice of motion inter-parties,â€ Justice Nderitu stated.
The program at the centre of the controversy requires that teachers be re-trained on six modules at a cost of Ksh6,000 each for five years.
Karanja argues that the training will not be practical as most of the teachers are aged, and thus, the implementation lacks solidity as they will retire before completing the training.
He now wants the program to be scrapped off and be declared null and void, citing violation of Article 232 on the Constitution requiring public participation.
Additionally, the President of the Law Society of Kenya, Nelson Havi, declared that he would challenge the directive in its entirety.