Universities caught up in accreditation battles over degrees

The recent decision by the Council of Legal Education (CLE) to approve only four universities for Master of Laws (LLM) programmes has opened a window overlooking, not only the law landscape, but a more complex issue that has been brewing for years – the ongoing battle for accreditation authority between regulatory bodies, professional organisations and universities.

Two weeks ago, CLE published a list of approved institutions for LLM programmes, including only Strathmore Law School, Mount Kenya University School of Law, the Catholic University of Eastern Africa faculty of law, and the School of Law at the Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology. Conspicuously absent from this elite group is the University of Nairobi, long considered the bedrock of legal education in the country.

The turn of events has angered universities, as they argue that approval of programmes by the Commission for University Education (CUE), the government-backed regulator, is adequate. In the recent past, professional bodies have been angling for control of the approval of programmes, saying they, and not the CUE, should make the final decision.

Quality over quantity in law

Dr Jane Muthoni, a legal education expert at Kenyatta University, said: “This marks a turning point in Kenya’s legal education landscape. It reflects a growing trend towards specialisation in law, aligning our system more closely with global standards. However, the exclusion of major institutions raises questions about the criteria used and the potential implications for the sector.”

The stark contrast between the number of institutions approved for Bachelor of Laws (LLB) programmes (18) and those for LLM programmes (four) underscores the CLE’s apparent push for quality over quantity in advanced legal education. This move is likely to intensify competition among law schools and potentially reshape the legal profession in Kenya.

However, this development in legal education is just one facet of a much larger, ongoing dispute that has been plaguing Kenya’s higher education sector for years. At the heart of this conflict lies a fundamental question: Who has the authority to accredit university programmes?

System has become complex

The roots of this conflict can be traced back to the establishment of the Commission for Higher Education (CHE) in 1985, which later evolved into the Commission for University Education, or CUE, in 2012. As Kenya’s higher education sector expanded rapidly in the 1990s and 2000s, professional bodies began to assert their influence over the accreditation process. These bodies, representing various professions such as law, engineering and medicine, argued that they were in the best position to determine the quality and relevance of academic programmes in their respective fields.

One university administrator, speaking on condition of anonymity in one of the mainstream newspapers, provided historical context: “In the early days, professional bodies played a crucial role in ensuring that university programmes met industry standards. However, as the number of universities and programmes grew, the system became increasingly complex and contentious.”

In 2020, the Vice Chancellors Committee presented its concerns to the National Assembly Education Committee, highlighting the challenges universities faced due to the stringent conditions professional bodies set.

The committee’s report stated: “The vice-chancellors tabled the amount the institutions were forced to pay for approval to mount and continue teaching some academic programmes. There are 27 professional bodies and associations that regulate the training and conduct of their members.”

This revelation shed light on the financial burden the accreditation process placed on universities, adding another layer of complexity to the dispute.

Who has the mandate?

The conflict has not been confined to boardrooms and committee meetings. It has spilled over into the courts, with several legal battles fought over the years. In a landmark ruling, the Court of Appeal affirmed CUE’s mandate as the sole body responsible for regulating standards and accrediting courses. However, this ruling has not put an end to the dispute, as some professional bodies continue to assert their authority in the accreditation process.

Professor Chacha Nyaigotti-Chacha, chairperson of the CUE, expressed his frustration with the ongoing situation. “We’re not asleep. We will act against bodies that usurp our mandate because their actions are criminal. We’re not operating a clandestine system, and the law is very clear on persons or institutions that are in breach.”

The ongoing dispute has had far-reaching consequences for students and universities. In some cases, graduates have found themselves unable to secure employment or professional registration due to disagreements over programme accreditation.

An example is the case of three former Egerton University students who petitioned the National Assembly. David Okoti, Ian Nyaga, and Elvin Onyango graduated in 2019 with a Bachelor of Science in Water and Environmental Engineering, only to discover that the Engineers Board of Kenya (EBK) did not recognise their degree.

Students caught in the middle

The relationship between engineers and the EBK has been strained in recent years, culminating in a dramatic occupation of the EBK offices by frustrated engineers through a protest a few weeks ago. This tension stems from ongoing disputes over accreditation and recognition of engineering degrees. Many graduates have found themselves in limbo, unable to secure employment or professional registration due to disagreements between universities and the EBK over programme accreditation.

Over 500 graduates from unaccredited programmes have sent petitions to the EBK to express their willingness to attend remedial programmes to register as graduate engineers. The occupation of the EBK offices represents the culmination of frustration among these graduates, who find themselves caught in the crossfire of a larger dispute between educational institutions, regulatory bodies and professional organisations.

Efforts have been made to bridge the gap between the CUE and professional bodies. In 2022, a committee was formed to amend and harmonise laws governing universities, professional bodies, and government ministries. However, progress has been slow, and information about the committee’s work remains scarce.

Collaboration and compromise suggested

Margaret Ogai, the registrar of the Engineers Board of Kenya, proposed a solution during a National Assembly Education Committee workshop: “Remove the Commission for University Education ‘may’ consult and replace it with the Commission for University Education ‘shall consult’. This will ensure that the CUE consults professional organisations before accrediting any engineering course in an institution.”

While such proposals aim to foster collaboration, they also highlight the ongoing power struggle between the CUE and professional bodies. As the dispute continues, stakeholders are calling for a more collaborative approach to accreditation. Some have suggested adopting models from other countries, such as Canada, where professional associations and accreditation bodies have reached compromises to work together effectively.

Professor John Odhiambo, chairperson of the Association of Vice-Chancellors of Private Universities, said: “The CUE should be responsible for the accreditation as stipulated in the Universities Act 2012 but let them involve procedurally the professional bodies in this process.” This approach could potentially strike a balance between maintaining academic standards and ensuring that programmes meet the needs of various professions.

As the legal community and academia grapple with these developments, several questions arise about the future of higher education and professional practice in Kenya:

• How will excluded institutions respond to the CLE’s decision?

• Will this push towards specialisation create a two-tiered system across various professions?

• How will it affect access to advanced education and, by extension, access to specialised services for ordinary Kenyans? and

• What criteria were used to determine the approved institutions, and will these be made transparent?

The success of these specialised programmes and the resolution of the broader accreditation dispute could determine the future of Kenya’s professional landscape and its place in the global community.