Questions are mounting over a major recruitment exercise in the Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) sector after documents highlighted by Nyakundi Report appeared to show a significant gap between the number of trainer positions advertised to the public and the number of appointments later approved.
The issue has triggered demands for answers from the Ministry of Education, the State Department for TVET, and the Public Service Commission (PSC).
At the centre of the controversy is Principal Secretary for TVET Esther Muoria, who is facing accusations from trainers and stakeholders who claim that a recruitment process initially advertised for 1,000 positions eventually resulted in the approval of 2,637 appointments.
The difference of 1,637 positions has raised concerns about transparency, fairness, and adherence to public service recruitment procedures.
Records show that in December 2025, the PSC published an advertisement inviting applications for 1,000 trainer vacancies across 248 TVET institutions nationwide. The vacancies were clearly broken down by institution, qualification level, and specialization.
Applicants were instructed to submit their applications before the January 2026 deadline through the institutions where the vacancies existed.However, a PSC appointment letter dated June 16, 2026, later approved the appointment of 2,637 Vocational and Technical Trainers and Assistant Vocational and Technical Trainers.
The letter indicated that the approval followed requests submitted by the State Department for TVET in April and May 2026, several months after the advertised recruitment process had closed.
The unexplained increase has left many trainers questioning how the additional positions emerged. Complainants argue that if extra vacancies were created after the original advertisement, they should have been publicly advertised to allow all qualified candidates an equal opportunity to compete.
They maintain that public recruitment processes are expected to follow clear steps that include advertising vacancies, receiving applications, shortlisting candidates, conducting interviews, and making appointments based on merit.
Particularly frustrated are trainers who have worked in TVET institutions for years under temporary arrangements and Board of Management contracts.
Many say they expected their experience and service records to improve their chances during recruitment but were ultimately left out. Some claim that individuals with limited teaching experience or qualifications unrelated to technical training appeared on the final appointment list.
Further concerns have emerged from the appointment documents themselves. Critics point to entries containing incomplete information, repeated names, inconsistent identification details, missing job grades, and qualifications that appear unrelated to some of the technical disciplines being filled. These observations have intensified calls for an independent review of the entire exercise.
The dispute comes at a critical time for Kenya’s TVET sector, which is implementing the Competency Based Education and Training programme.
Trainers are expected to deliver practical skills and conduct assessments that directly prepare learners for the job market. Stakeholders argue that the success of the programme depends heavily on recruiting qualified and experienced instructors.
Those raising the concerns are now demanding the release of interview records, shortlisting lists, panel minutes, appointment scores, and the correspondence that led to the approval of the additional positions.
They also want clarification on whether the Treasury approved funding for 2,637 new positions and whether institutions requested the extra staff.
The matter has now attracted calls for investigations by Parliament, the Public Service Commission, the Ministry of Education, and the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission.
Critics argue that only a comprehensive audit can determine whether the appointments complied with public service hiring regulations and whether all successful candidates were selected through a fair and competitive process.
Attention remains focused on the unanswered question at the heart of the dispute: how did a recruitment exercise publicly advertised for 1,000 vacancies end with 2,637 approved appointments?
Until a detailed explanation is provided, the controversy is likely to continue fueling concerns about accountability and transparency within one of the country’s most important education sectors.
Add Comment