The High Court in Kakamega dismissed a challenge to English instruction in schools.
Justice Stephen Mbungi ruled that the petitioner failed to prove that English instruction violated learners’ constitutional rights.
The High Court in Kakamega has dismissed a petition challenging the English language policy in Kenyan schools. Justice Stephen Mbungi found that the petitioner had not proved that the policy violated constitutional rights.
Education rights advocate Ernest Achesa Makhambala sought the introduction of Kiswahili and indigenous languages as alternative teaching languages. However, in his November 9 judgment, the judge ruled that Makhambala had not established the alleged violations.
Why Makhambala challenged the English language policy
Makhambala contested English as the language of instruction and national assessment from Grade 4 to Grade 12. He argued that the policy disadvantaged children with limited English proficiency, including learners in rural areas.
He also challenged the classification of indigenous languages as non-formal learning activities in Grades 4 to 9. In his view, the government had failed to treat those languages equally within the curriculum.
The advocate therefore asked the court to direct the Ministry of Education and the Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development to act. He wanted them to progressively introduce Kiswahili and indigenous languages for both classroom instruction and assessment.
Court finds no proof of constitutional violations
However, Justice Mbungi distinguished the constitutional duty to promote indigenous languages from a requirement to use them in every educational setting. He also noted that both English and Kiswahili hold official language status in Kenya.
The judge found no demonstration that English instruction denied children access to free and compulsory basic education. Article 53 of the Constitution guarantees that right. He further considered it impracticable to expect every child to learn in their mother tongue.
On early learning, the court held that a failure to approve indigenous-language textbooks did not prohibit teaching in those languages. The law allows instruction in a child’s preferred language where reasonably practicable.
Meanwhile, the judge found that Makhambala had not identified relevant considerations the government overlooked when developing the curriculum. Nor had he demonstrated that the decision to use English was unreasonable.
