Legal education is in disarray in some universities of Kenya

Panic swept through some university law schools in Kenya following the release of the report of the on-site inspection by the Council of Legal Education Quality Assurance and Compliance Committee for the Bachelor of Law Programmes (LL.B).

The inspection criteria and guidelines applied in the assessment and evaluation of legal education programmes in institutions require that each legal education programme is assessed and evaluated individually and not as part of any other programme; and every campus offering legal education similarly is assessed and evaluated individually and must therefore supply independent and verifiable information and data itself.

There are 10 objectives for the assessment.

The first is on the vision, mission and strategic objectives to assess the preparedness of the university, college and the institution in sustenance of legal education programme.

The second is to evaluate the governance, management structures and systems in order to determine their capacity to effectively deliver the legal education programme.

The third is on admission requirements, class size and enrolment data to assess the extent to which the institution has complied with the admission requirements set out in the Legal Education Act and the Regulations.

KNOWLEDGE DEVELOPMENT

The fourth is on curricular and modes of delivery to assess the relevance and value of the programme in contributing to the legal education and training and the legal profession in its entirety.

The fifth is on examinations and examination administration to assess the level of integrity and objectivity of the examinations system in testing the attainment of the objectives of the legal education programme.

The sixth assessment on academic staff and qualifications is to assess the capacity of the institution to deliver the programme and to determine the staff-student ratio and the workload of academic staff.

The seventh assessment is on research and publications to assess the level to which academic staff contribute to the development of knowledge through research.

The eighth is on infrastructure and resources to assess the availability and adequacy of the infrastructural resources to support the legal education programme.

RESEARCH RESOURCES

The ninth is on library and library resources to assess the available research resources to support the legal education programme.

The tenth, on student services and support, is to determine whether the institution has set aside adequate student support services and resources to achieve learning outcomes for the legal education programme.

With respect to Moi University which I consider a tragedy, the institution is non-compliant to the extent that its mission, vision and core values were not in tandem with the curriculum having not conducted a feasibility study to inform its philosophy.

The institution had not recruited a Dean who is either a doctorate holder or in the rank of Associate Professor of Law and its strategic plan did not make reference to proper planning of the law school.

Despite receiving colossal amounts of money through its modular programmes, the institution had not made adequate financial commitments towards the law school.

UNVIABLE CURRICULUM

The methods of assessment of the programmes cannot be properly ascertained since the institution does not have a viable curriculum.

The university also does not have the requisite number of core textbooks to serve its student population at the ratio of one core textbook to five students because the faculty student ratio is 1:60 – above the regulatory 1:15.

The lecture rooms are, therefore, crowded with inadequate bandwidth because of lack of Internet connection. To make it worse, the institution mounted a Masters of Law Programme without formal accreditation.

Those responsible for this state of affairs at Moi University Law School have not only jeopardised careers of innocent students but are also criminally culpable for their acts of omission and commission.