The Teacher and the System – The Story Behind the Story

By Christine Mungai

How the Investigation Began

I came to this story not just as a journalist, but as an alumna of Alliance Girls High School, deeply connected to its community and history. With over fifteen years of experience in journalism, I’ve learned to pay attention to quiet, persistent patterns – especially the ones that emerge in whispers, across time, and through trusted networks.

Through informal conversations within the alumni community, I began to hear troubling stories – accounts of a teacher whose interactions with students and ex-students crossed boundaries, emotionally and in some cases physically. These were not one-off rumours, but recurring accounts that hinted at something systemic.

What made me look deeper was a specific revelation: that in 2021, news of an extramarital affair between the teacher and a former student had reportedly reached the leadership of the teacher’s church community, pastored by his father. Despite this, he remained in his post, continuing to play a prominent role in both the school and its Christian Union (C.U.). That detail stayed with me. It suggested not just individual misconduct, but institutional inertia – perhaps even protection.

I began to investigate quietly and independently. Over time, I interviewed multiple former students across different graduating classes. Five of them gave me firsthand accounts. Two spoke of non-consensual physical contact while they were still in school. One described a non-consensual kiss initiated by the teacher mere weeks after leaving the school. Two others described emotionally charged relationships that started just after school and later turned physical/ sexual – relationships shaped by the deep power imbalance between a trusted adult and a vulnerable adolescent girl.

What emerged was a clear, consistent pattern: a teacher who used his role and influence to build emotionally intense bonds with students, only to later exploit those bonds. 

We contacted three former principals for comment, whose tenures ran from 2004-2022. Two – Mrs. Janet Mbugua and Mrs. Dorothy Kamwilu – declined to comment on the claims made in this article. Mrs. Virginia Gitonga had not yet responded to our interview request by the time we were publishing this story.

When We Asked the Questions

In the days leading up to publication, I personally sought a right of reply from the school. I went in person to see the Principal to get an official comment. She asked me to brief her on the findings of the investigation, which I did. She expressed shock and horror at the revelations and informed me that the school’s Board of Management (BOM) would be meeting the next day. She invited me to attend the meeting and brief the board myself – an unusual request, given that journalists typically send questions via email or phone.

I accepted, even though I made it clear that I was there to get an official comment, not to make a case. At the meeting, board members responded with expressions of outrage, but their response quickly pivoted to pressure: they asked me to delay or drop the story entirely, promising decisive action on their part. One board member suggested I write a positive follow-up story months later, showcasing how the institution had handled the issue since it had now been escalated to them. Another, in an emotional outburst, grabbed my arm while shouting about how seriously they took abuse.

Throughout both meetings, the school’s reputation was invoked repeatedly. There was a clear tension between acknowledging the gravity of the situation and managing the image of the institution. The chair of the school’s alumni association, as well as my colleague from Africa Uncensored, were present and can corroborate my account of the events here. 

Despite all this, both the Principal and the Board refused to receive a printed copy of the right-of-reply questions. They offered no formal response by the publication deadline.

These encounters underscore two things. First, that I approached the story with full transparency and good faith. I went beyond conventional journalistic practice to appear in person at the school twice, in order to ensure fairness and provide the school with ample opportunity to respond. Second, that the school’s leadership – while quick to express outrage – appeared more concerned with narrative management than accountability. The investigation was not just about one teacher’s misconduct; it pointed to systemic failures, which those in authority were hesitant to confront publicly.

The Gag Order

On Friday, 2nd May, the teacher at the centre of this investigation was contacted with a right-of-reply request. He engaged with my editor in a 35-minute conversation, was informed of the key allegations, and responded in part: denying some claims, offering clarifications on others, and declining to address other questions. 

By Monday, 5th May, he had filed legal papers seeking to block the publication of the story. The following day, the court issued an injunction restraining the story from being published, on grounds that its release would cause him irreparable harm – including reputational damage, potential loss of employment, and what he termed “intense character assassination.” 

In his affidavit, he further argued that no formal complaints had ever been filed against him, and that the speed of online publication would make retraction or correction impossible once the story was live. The magistrate gave an inter-partes hearing date of 26th May, which was three weeks away.

Our lawyers contested the injunction on multiple grounds:

• Constitutional protections for press freedom under Article 34 of the Kenyan Constitution;
• The public interest, given that the subject of the investigation is a teacher with ongoing access to and influence over minors;
• Procedural fairness, as he was granted a right of reply, which he exercised by responding directly to our editor;
• The risk of witness intimidation, as the delay in publication may allow time to pressure or interfere with sources and survivors.

This legal action forms part of a wider pattern of suppression – one that seeks not to correct inaccuracies, but to delay and derail public scrutiny.

We appealed to the court to expedite the hearing, and managed to get the petition before a different magistrate. However, the second magistrate directed that the gag orders remain and we appear before the same magistrate who originally granted the injunction, on the appointed date – 26th May, 2025. 

The Inter-Partes Hearing

On Monday, 26th May, at what was supposed to be the inter-partes hearing – the opportunity for both sides to present their arguments – the proceedings lasted no more than three minutes. The teacher’s legal team claimed they had not been served with our defense, despite proof that we had done so. Nonetheless, the magistrate instructed us to re-send the documents and then announced that she would issue a ruling on July 4th – six weeks away.

His lawyers also requested that the existing injunction remain in force until the ruling is delivered. The magistrate agreed, granting the extension with no further discussion. No arguments were heard, and no substantive engagement with the defense took place. The session ended without deliberation, extending the silencing effect of the injunction even further.

The Ruling

On Friday 4th July, the magistrate ruled in our favour. The injunction that had stopped the publication of our investigation has been lifted. The court found that the story touches on serious matters of public interest – especially the protection of minors and accountability within institutions – and that the plaintiff did not meet the threshold for a permanent gag order.

The ruling emphasised that while allegations must still be proven at trial, the evidence presented – multiple, consistent accounts supported by documentation and interviews – was enough to bring the issue under the purview of Article 53(2) of the Constitution. This article prioritizes the best interests of the child in all matters. The magistrate said plainly that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the intended publication was false, malicious, or reckless. On the contrary, the court found that he had been given a right of reply and that the story had been responsibly pursued.

The ruling went further: it acknowledged that cases of sexual abuse involving children are often underreported, difficult to prosecute, and frequently silenced by power imbalances. In such cases, the court said, issuing an injunction would have a chilling effect—discouraging victims, emboldening impunity, and shielding potential misconduct from public scrutiny.

This is a profound affirmation – not just of press freedom, but of our duty to protect the vulnerable and expose harm where it occurs. The magistrate noted that child protection is not a secondary concern. It is a constitutional imperative. And when credible indications of institutional failure exist, the judicial lens must shift toward transparency and accountability.

Have you experienced something similar to what has been outlined here, or do you have insight to share? This story is part of an ongoing effort to understand the wider systems and silences that made this possible. If you’re a former student, teacher, parent, or anyone with information or reflections to add, you’re invited to reach out. You can write to us confidentially at 109walkinthelight@pm.me. All correspondence will be handled with care, and no information will be published without your explicit consent. Your voice could help bring greater understanding – and accountability.

Has something in this story brought up some emotions that you need help with? Here is a list of counsellors and therapists in Kenya that you can reach out to.