Court Rules Payment of School Fees via e-Citizen Unconstitutional

Court Rules Payment of School Fees via e-Citizen Unconstitutional

The government has faced a significant setback after the High Court determined that the mandate requiring parents to pay school fees through the eCitizen platform is unconstitutional and unlawful.

On Tuesday, Justice Chacha Mwita stated that President William Ruto’s directive issued in January 2024 breached constitutional provisions due to insufficient public involvement and engagement with stakeholders.

In his ruling, Justice Mwita emphasized that the government’s failure to consult with parents, school administrators, and other relevant parties before implementing such a critical policy violated the democratic process and the public participation requirements outlined in the Constitution.

“The government did not involve the public in the decision-making process, and this lack of consultation undermines the integrity of the directive,” he remarked.

“A decision of this significance should have been preceded by open discussions with those who will be affected,” he added.

The judge ruled that the directive contravened the constitutional principle mandating the government to engage with the public and stakeholders on important policies that impact their lives.

Justice Mwita also declared that any transaction fee of Sh50 or more associated with school fee payments was unlawful, labeling it a “double charge.”

Additionally, he annulled a letter issued by the then Education Principal Secretary Belio Kipsang on January 31, 2024, which instructed national school principals to enforce the payment of school fees through the eCitizen platform.

The court further issued a broad injunction preventing Cabinet Secretaries John Mbadi (Treasury), William Kabogo (ICT), and Migos Ogamba (Education) from implementing the eCitizen payment system for school fees.

The judge also prohibited the Cabinet Secretaries and their representatives from imposing any administrative, convenience, or transaction fees, including the Sh50 fee or any other additional charges related to the e-payment system.

This court decision follows a challenge brought by Dr. Magare Gikenyi, a doctor based in Nakuru, who argued that the government’s directive to parents was illegal and unconstitutional due to the lack of public participation and a disregard for transparency in governance.

“The program was implemented without any public involvement, and the Sh50 convenience fee per transaction was determined arbitrarily, without any consideration for public input,” Dr. Gikenyi contended.

He further criticized the Sh50 transaction fee as “absurd” and “irrational,” especially in situations where parents were making small payments for school services.

Dr. Gikenyi illustrated a troubling scenario where a parent pays Sh30 for their child’s lunch at a public school, only to be compelled to pay an additional Sh50 for the transaction, bringing the total to Sh80. He pointed out that this situation highlights a disconnect between government actions and the everyday realities faced by many Kenyans.

Coming from a rural background, Gikenyi raised concerns about the digital payment system potentially alienating parents who traditionally settled fees through barter, such as exchanging maize or beans with the school. “How will parents in rural areas adapt to this digital requirement? Many of them still rely on in-kind trading and are unfamiliar with online payment systems,” he remarked.

The petitioner noted the absence of legislation or guidelines regarding the utilization of these funds and their return to the end users.

In defense, the government, represented by the Ministry of Education, asserted that the eCitizen platform was a progressive move towards ensuring transparency and accountability in the collection of school fees. The Cabinet Secretaries for Treasury, ICT, and Education stated that the initiative aimed to simplify the payment process, promote transparency, and combat corruption.

In their court submissions, the government maintained that the eCitizen platform was legally established and would facilitate easier fee payments for parents at any time, thereby enhancing accessibility and minimizing fraud.

However, Justice Mwita expressed skepticism regarding these claims. He highlighted the ambiguity surrounding the ownership and operational control of the eCitizen platform, noting that the government had not provided evidence of who actually managed the platform or how the collected funds would be used.

In his ruling, Justice Mwita stressed the lack of clarity regarding the operations of the eCitizen platform. He concluded that there was no proof that the government had complete control over the platform or that a public tender had been issued for its development and operation.

“While the government asserts control over the eCitizen platform, no documentation has been presented to demonstrate that it is fully operated by the Kenyan government,” Justice Mwita stated. “The government has not indicated whether any agreement exists with the private entity managing the platform, nor has it revealed if this entity receives compensation for its services.”

The judge further questioned the practicality of the initiative, particularly given the absence of a comprehensive plan to address the concerns of parents, especially those in rural areas without access to digital platforms. “The payment of school fees is not a transaction for government services. It should be conducted in a way that accommodates all families, not just those with easy internet access,” Justice Mwita declared.