15/08/2026
TSC, TEACHERS AND THE DANGEROUS BUSINESS OF POLICING OPINION
There is a difference between reminding teachers to behave professionally and telling them, implicitly or otherwise, to keep quiet. The recent circular from the Teachers Service Commission on teachers’ conduct online deserves more than outrage. It deserves scrutiny.
Let us begin with something obvious: teachers, like every other citizen, are not above the law. If a teacher publishes hate speech, incites violence, defames another person, publishes prohibited material, commits cyber harassment or engages in any other unlawful conduct online, let the law take its course.
Kenya already has laws dealing with such conduct. The Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act provides for offences relating to unlawful online conduct, including certain false publications and other cyber offences.
But there is an important distinction we must not lose: Being a teacher does not mean surrendering your constitutional right to expression.
Article 33 of the Constitution gives every person the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas. That right is not absolute, but its limitations are expressly defined. TSC, quite legitimately, has disciplinary authority over teachers. Its own regulations provide for professional misconduct and require teachers to uphold the dignity and integrity of the teaching service.
But professional regulation should not quietly become political censorship. There is a world of difference between saying: “Teacher, do not commit an offence online.” And saying: “Teacher, be careful what you say online because we are watching.” The first is a legitimate reminder of the law. The second creates a chilling effect. And that is where the conversation becomes uncomfortable.
A teacher does not stop being a citizen at the school gate. Teachers vote. Teachers pay taxes. Teachers have opinions. Teachers experience poor public services. Teachers have families struggling with the cost of living. Teachers have salaries. Teachers have mortgages. Teachers have children in schools. Teachers use hospitals. Teachers use roads. Teachers interact with government institutions. Teachers therefore have every legitimate reason to participate in public discourse.
In fact, one could argue that a teacher who teaches citizenship, democracy, human rights and critical thinking should not be expected to become intellectually invisible outside the classroom. We cannot teach children to think critically in the morning and instruct their teachers not to think publicly in the evening. That would be a rather impressive contradiction.
Of course, teachers must exercise responsibility. Professional status comes with responsibilities. A teacher should not use his or her position to intimidate students, disclose confidential information, spread malicious falsehoods or bring the teaching profession into genuine disrepute. But professionalism is not the same thing as political silence. And this is where TSC must tread carefully.
The Commission should regulate conduct that genuinely falls within its lawful mandate. It should not create an atmosphere in which legitimate criticism of government, public policy or even the Commission itself is interpreted as misconduct simply because the speaker happens to be a teacher.
A teacher criticising the cost of living is not necessarily engaging in incitement. A teacher questioning government policy is not necessarily being insubordinate. A teacher criticising TSC is not necessarily undermining the teaching profession. A teacher expressing a political opinion is not automatically committing professional misconduct. And a teacher posting something embarrassing to the government is certainly not, by that fact alone, a cybercriminal.
If there is an offence, investigate it. If there is evidence, prosecute it. If there is professional misconduct, charge it. If there is no offence and no professional misconduct, perhaps the teacher is simply exercising a constitutional right. That distinction matters. Because once institutions begin disciplining people for what they might say rather than what they have unlawfully done, we move from regulation to intimidation. And intimidation has a way of producing very quiet citizens. Perhaps this is why the circular feels particularly uncomfortable to many teachers.
There is a perception; whether entirely fair or not, that institutions can become remarkably vocal when dealing with the ordinary employee and remarkably quiet when confronting larger institutional failures. Teachers have watched salaries and payslips become sources of anxiety. They have watched deductions appear. They have struggled with administrative decisions. They have experienced the frustrations of deployment, promotion, transfers and payroll systems.
And sometimes the response from institutions feels painfully bureaucratic. Yet when it comes to what teachers say on Facebook, X, TikTok or WhatsApp, suddenly the institutional megaphone works perfectly. That contrast deserves examination. Institutions earn respect not merely by exercising power, but by exercising it consistently and fairly.
TSC should therefore ask itself a simple question: Are we protecting the teaching profession, or protecting ourselves from criticism? Those are not the same thing. The teaching profession needs standards. It needs discipline. It needs integrity. It needs accountability.
But it also needs teachers who can think. Teachers who can question. Teachers who can participate in society. Teachers who can speak about public affairs. Teachers who can disagree with politicians. Teachers who can criticise government policy. Teachers who can even criticise TSC.
Because democracy does not become stronger when public servants become afraid to speak. It becomes weaker. And perhaps the greatest irony is this: We are living in a country where we constantly tell young people to become critical thinkers. Then we become uncomfortable when the people teaching them critical thinking exercise it themselves.
Let us not confuse discipline with silence. Let us not confuse professionalism with political obedience. Let us not confuse regulation with intimidation. And let us certainly not create a class of citizens who must surrender their constitutional voice simply because they happen to teach.
TSC has a legitimate mandate. So does the Constitution. And when the two appear to collide, the answer should not be a louder circular. It should be law, reason, due process and constitutional fidelity. If a teacher breaks the law online, deal with the teacher according to the law. If a teacher commits professional misconduct, let TSC follow due process.
But if a teacher simply expresses a lawful opinion? Perhaps the Commission should learn to live with the noise. After all, a teacher without a voice is a rather strange person to entrust with teaching children how to find theirs.
©Mung’athia Samson
Author | Consultant | Trainer | Speaker
