NAIROBI, Kenya – The High Court has declared the government’s new university funding model unconstitutional, citing discrimination and lack of public participation in its formulation.
Justice Chacha Mwita ruled that the Variable Scholarship and Loan Funding (VSLF) model unfairly categorizes students based on perceived family income, creating an unconstitutional divide among learners.
“It’s unrealistic, if not unfair, to consider someone earning Sh70,000 per month as ‘needy,’ given the current taxation levels in the country,” Justice Mwita stated. “Every person is equal before the law, and the state cannot discriminate against anyone on any grounds.”
The VSLF model introduced income-based clusters to determine scholarship and loan allocations.
Families earning less than Sh5,995 fall into Band 1, while those earning between Sh5,995 and Sh23,670 are placed in Band 2.
Families with monthly incomes between Sh23,671 and Sh70,000 are classified under Band 3, while Bands 4 and 5—those earning above Sh70,000—receive minimal scholarships but higher loan allocations.
Justice Mwita criticized the method of classification, saying it lacked transparency.
“While the categories may appear innocent, it is not clear how these income brackets were arrived at,” he observed.
He further noted that under the previous funding model, all students were treated equally regardless of socioeconomic status.
The petition, filed by the Kenya Human Rights Commission, activist Boaz Wakuru, and Elimu Bora, argued that the model discriminated against students from middle- and high-income families while failing to meet constitutional requirements for public participation.
The government defended the VSLF, insisting it allows all students to apply for financial support, with digital data analysis determining loan and scholarship allocations based on need.
However, Justice Mwita found the system legally flawed, stating that it lacks a clear legal framework and fails to outline the source and procedures for loan disbursement.
“This funding model is not anchored in any law. Its composition and procedure remain unknown,” the judge declared.
Justice Mwita emphasized that the sweeping changes brought about by the model required public participation—a constitutional obligation the government failed to meet.
“The recommendations on the new model were not subjected to public participation despite the drastic and fundamental shift in higher education funding,” he said.
The court prohibited the government from implementing the VSLF model until it complies with constitutional requirements, including transparency, public input, and legal anchoring.
Justice Chacha Mwita ruled that the Variable Scholarship and Loan Funding (VSLF) model unfairly categorizes students based on perceived family income, creating an unconstitutional divide among learners.
“It’s unrealistic, if not unfair, to consider someone earning Sh70,000 per month as ‘needy,’ given the current taxation levels in the country,” Justice Mwita stated. “Every person is equal before the law, and the state cannot discriminate against anyone on any grounds.”
The VSLF model introduced income-based clusters to determine scholarship and loan allocations.
Families earning less than Sh5,995 fall into Band 1, while those earning between Sh5,995 and Sh23,670 are placed in Band 2.
Families with monthly incomes between Sh23,671 and Sh70,000 are classified under Band 3, while Bands 4 and 5—those earning above Sh70,000—receive minimal scholarships but higher loan allocations.
Justice Mwita criticized the method of classification, saying it lacked transparency.
“While the categories may appear innocent, it is not clear how these income brackets were arrived at,” he observed.
He further noted that under the previous funding model, all students were treated equally regardless of socioeconomic status.
The petition, filed by the Kenya Human Rights Commission, activist Boaz Wakuru, and Elimu Bora, argued that the model discriminated against students from middle- and high-income families while failing to meet constitutional requirements for public participation.
The government defended the VSLF, insisting it allows all students to apply for financial support, with digital data analysis determining loan and scholarship allocations based on need.
However, Justice Mwita found the system legally flawed, stating that it lacks a clear legal framework and fails to outline the source and procedures for loan disbursement.
“This funding model is not anchored in any law. Its composition and procedure remain unknown,” the judge declared.
Justice Mwita emphasized that the sweeping changes brought about by the model required public participation—a constitutional obligation the government failed to meet.
“The recommendations on the new model were not subjected to public participation despite the drastic and fundamental shift in higher education funding,” he said.
The court prohibited the government from implementing the VSLF model until it complies with constitutional requirements, including transparency, public input, and legal anchoring.
