The recent attempt to move teachers from Minet’s medical insurance cover to the Social Health Authority (SHA) scheme has opened a wave of confusion and legal uncertainty across the education sector.
What was meant to be a smooth transition toward a unified health system has instead exposed deep cracks in the way the process was handled, with many questioning the legality and fairness of the decision.
Teachers across the country have long depended on the Minet scheme, which has for years provided comprehensive health insurance for more than 350,000 teachers and their families.
The decision by the Teachers Service Commission (TSC) to phase out this arrangement and transfer all teachers to the SHA scheme has not only raised alarm among unions but also triggered possible legal battles.
Critics argue that the TSC failed to follow proper procedure and ignored the need for consultation with the affected workers before making such a major change.
Sources close to the process claim that teachers were not properly informed or given the chance to give their views before the directive took effect.
For many, this lack of transparency is a serious breach of trust. A Nairobi-based education lawyer warned that such unilateral action could expose the TSC to lawsuits for violating existing contracts and workers’ rights.
The lawyer emphasized that teachers should not be treated as items to be transferred from one insurer to another without consent, as there are binding agreements that can only be terminated through lawful means.
The Social Health Authority, which replaced the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF), is still in its early stages of implementation, and many of its systems remain incomplete. This has made the transition even more complicated.
Teachers have already complained of confusion in registration, uncertainty about which hospitals will serve them, and the possible loss of benefits they previously enjoyed under Minet.
For many, the change feels rushed and unclear.
Leaders of teachers’ unions have voiced strong opposition to the manner in which the change is being carried out.
The Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET) and the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) have both cautioned the government that if the current gaps are not fixed, industrial unrest could follow.
KUPPET Secretary-General Akello Misori stated that while the unions do not oppose the idea of the SHA, they will not accept reforms that undermine the medical rights of teachers.
Legal experts have also pointed out that since the Minet cover was a private contract based on mutual contributions, moving members to a public system without renegotiation could amount to a breach of contract.
The Ministry of Health has defended the decision, saying it is part of a larger plan to unify all health coverage under one national body to avoid duplication and promote universal healthcare.
Despite this justification, serious legal questions remain unanswered. Can the TSC legally remove teachers from a private health insurance scheme without their approval?
Do teachers have the right to challenge the move in court as a violation of their labor and contractual rights?
Until these questions are clearly addressed, the transition to SHA is likely to remain one of the most disputed reforms in Kenya’s education sector, where matters of health, law, and workers’ rights are now tightly intertwined.
Add Comment