Side Hustles on Trial: Why Teachers Are Pushing Back on the TSC Amendment Bill’s Moonlighting Ban
As Parliament opens the Teachers Service Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2026 to public participation, one clause is drawing more attention in staffrooms than any other: engaging in other gainful employment while employed by the Commission would become a listed disciplinary offence.
In staffrooms across the country, the conversation has shifted from marking schemes and syllabus coverage to a few lines buried in a schedule.
The Teachers Service Commission (Amendment) Bill, 2026, National Assembly Bill No. 64 of 2026, is now before Parliament. It was published in Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 232 on 11 September 2026 and received by the National Assembly on 29 September.
It is sponsored by the Majority Leader, Kimani Ichung’wah. It amends the TSC Act (Cap. 212) in 40 clauses and adds a new Fourth Schedule.
The National Assembly has invited teachers and other members of the public to give their views before the Bill advances.
Much of the early coverage has focused on mandatory Continuous Professional Development, the new performance appraisal framework and higher fines for unregistered teaching.
Those matter. But for many teachers, the provision with the most direct effect on daily life sits in the replacement Third Schedule, which lists disciplinary offences. Among the new entries is “engaging in other gainful employment while an employee of the Commission.”
For teachers who run a small shop, keep dairy cows, farm a plot, tutor, sell insurance, operate a matatu or run an online business, that line is a warning. Many are now asking Parliament to look at it very carefully.
What the Bill actually says
The Bill defines “gainful employment” by reference to the Leadership and Integrity Act. The Bill does not state how much of that definition would apply to a teacher’s ordinary private income-earning activities.
It places the new offence beside others that no one disputes: chronic absenteeism, desertion of duty, insubordination, cyberbullying, forged documents, embezzlement of public funds and exposing learners to illicit drugs.
The consequences are serious. Under the proposed section 35F, a teacher found culpable of a disciplinary offence can receive a warning letter or a surcharge.
Heavier penalties include suspension of up to six months, cancellation of the registration certificate and removal from the register, retirement in the public interest, dismissal or termination.
The Bill does not say which penalty fits which offence. That is left to “the offence and applicable procedures,” in the words of the Bill’s own framework.
A teacher who is interdicted receives half basic salary plus applicable allowances. In practical terms, a teacher accused of running a side business could face a drop in income while the process runs. The same Bill that restricts additional income would also cut the income a teacher has left.
It is also worth remembering what is not in the Bill. It does not say what counts as a prohibited side activity, what amount of income triggers the offence, or whether unpaid, family or passive investment activities are covered. These are the questions teachers are asking.
The case against: five objections
1. The vagueness problem
Criminal and disciplinary law works best when a person can read a rule and know whether they are breaking it. “Gainful employment” is a broad phrase.
Does a teacher who rents out a flat count? What about one who sells vegetables from a family farm, helps a spouse’s shop on weekends, runs a church-based sacco, or earns from a YouTube channel?
Does a teacher who is paid for marking national examinations, conducting remedial classes or training other teachers fall afoul of it?
The Bill’s text offers no answer, and that alone is reason for concern. A rule that leaves so much open invites uneven enforcement. In practice, one head of institution may tolerate a teacher’s side business while another reports it.
The Bill also puts heads of institutions under performance contracts and makes them responsible for overseeing teacher appraisals. That creates an obvious pressure on them to act against teachers, rather than to turn a blind eye.
The Bill contains other open-ended offences, including “any other act or conduct that is incompatible with the teaching profession” as grounds for removal from the register.
Combined with the moonlighting provision, they widen the circle of what could attract discipline without telling teachers where the boundaries are.
2. Pay, and the reality of a teacher’s household
No honest discussion of this clause can ignore why so many teachers have side income in the first place. The Bill itself recognises that the Commission determines terms and conditions for its employees, guided by advice from the Salaries and Remuneration Commission. It also says the Commission must negotiate with recognised unions where they exist.
That is the point teachers will raise: the State cannot easily demand exclusive service while setting pay that leaves families stretched.
Teachers pay school fees, rent, medical bills and loan instalments like everyone else. Many are paying back loans against salary deductions. For some, a small business is how a family stays afloat, pays for a child’s university education or builds toward retirement.
The Bill also makes promotion depend on “the approved establishment and availability of budget.” Teachers who have waited years for a promotion that never came will point out that the Bill tightens the rules on one side of the ledger while leaving advancement tied to funds that may not exist.
If the employer cannot promise a rise in earnings, they argue, it has weaker grounds to forbid teachers from earning elsewhere.
3. A ban that is wider than the harm it targets
Supporters of the clause will say it protects teaching time and the integrity of the profession. A teacher who is distracted by a business, or who is absent from class tending to it, is not serving learners. That is a fair concern, and nobody in the profession disputes that a teacher’s first duty is to the classroom.
But the Bill already deals with that problem directly. Chronic absenteeism, desertion of duty and negligence of duty are all listed offences. A teacher who neglects lessons because of a business can already be disciplined for neglect.
The question teachers are putting to Parliament is why the law should go further and punish the existence of a side activity even where the teacher is in class, on time, teaching well and meeting every professional standard.
An approach tied to conduct and outcomes would be narrower and fairer. It would ask whether the teacher’s outside activity interferes with duties, creates a conflict of interest or involves school resources, rather than banning the activity altogether. Many teachers would accept that kind of rule readily.
4. Heavy penalties, thin safeguards
Teachers are not asking to be above accountability. Their concern is the combination of a broad offence, heavy penalties and procedures left largely to regulations that do not yet exist.
The Bill says an accused teacher is entitled to a fair disciplinary process in line with the Employment Act. That is welcome.
But key procedural details, including how interdiction works and what the administrative action is, are left for later. The exception to the half-salary rule for desertion of duty is worded unclearly.
The new Teachers Service Review Committee, made up of three commissioners, is meant to give teachers a route to challenge decisions.
Grounds include new material facts, an error apparent on the record, a fundamental procedural flaw and a breach of written law. The application has to be made in writing within 90 days and with a prescribed fee, and the Bill does not state the fee.
The Committee’s decision is described as “final,” while a separate section preserves the right to go to the High Court or the Employment and Labour Relations Court. How those two provisions fit together will need clarification.
For a teacher facing dismissal over a side venture, those details decide whether the review process is a real safeguard or a formality. Parliament has a chance to tighten them before the Bill becomes law.
5. It lands on top of everything else
The moonlighting clause does not stand alone. In the same Bill, teachers would have to complete prescribed CPD to hold a practising certificate, without knowing how much training that means or how much of their own time and money it will cost.
They would face a performance appraisal framework whose results can inform rewards and sanctions. They would also be subject to TSC terms, policies, guidelines and administrative circulars, and any of those could be used in discipline.
Each measure can be defended on its own. Taken together, they place a heavy new compliance burden on a workforce that already carries large classes, curriculum changes and heavy administrative work.
A teacher told to attend more training, meet new appraisal targets and give up outside income is entitled to ask what the profession is offering in return.
What supporters will say, and what the Bill gets right
A fair article has to acknowledge that the Bill has real strengths, and teachers’ representatives have said as much about other parts of the proposal.
Tougher penalties for people who teach while unregistered, falsify documents or help others to do so protect the profession from fraud. The list of offences involving learners, including sexual exploitation, exposure to pornography and drugs, and cyberbullying, responds to genuine child-protection concerns.
A structured CPD system, backed by an Institute of Teacher Support and Professional Development, could improve classroom practice if it is well funded and well run.
The Bill keeps collective bargaining in law, through direct negotiation with recognised unions under Article 41(5) of the Constitution. It also commits the Commission to comply with the Data Protection Act when handling teachers’ personal information.
Teachers who object to the side-income clause are not objecting to any of that. Their argument is narrow: delete the clause, or define it so tightly that it reaches only conduct that harms learners or conflicts with teaching duties.
What teachers can ask Parliament to do
Here are the amendments teachers can reasonably put forward during public participation:
Define the term. If the offence stays, the Bill should state exactly what counts as prohibited gainful employment and what does not, rather than leaving it to a cross-reference.
Add express exemptions. Farming, investments, rental income, family businesses, and professional work connected to education, such as examination marking, training and authorship, could be carved out.
Link the offence to harm. The test could be whether the outside activity interferes with the teacher’s duties, uses school time or resources, or creates a conflict of interest.
Introduce a permission route. A teacher could be allowed to declare and seek approval for a side activity, rather than risk dismissal for failing to declare it.
Set graduated penalties. The Bill should say which sanction applies to which offence, so a first-time breach of this kind does not carry the same exposure as sexual misconduct.
Put procedure in the Bill. Interdiction, review fees and the relationship between “final” Committee decisions and court access should be settled in the text.
Link pay and conduct. Any restriction on earning outside the profession should be tied to a commitment on pay, promotion and terms of service.
How to take part
The Bill is not yet law. It still has to go through committee review and public participation, readings in the National Assembly and presidential assent. Regulations will follow after that. Nothing in it binds a teacher today.
Teachers can read the Bill themselves, with particular attention to the replacement Third Schedule and clauses 28, 30 to 31 and 38 to 41.
They can send written memoranda to the National Assembly’s departmental committee and make their case through their unions, whether KNUT, KUPPET or others. Teachers can also attend the public hearings in person.
Submissions that are specific, say which clause they target and offer replacement wording tend to carry more weight than general complaints.
The bottom line
The question before Parliament is not whether teachers should be held to high standards. They should, and the Bill contains many provisions that serve that goal.
The question is whether the law should treat a teacher’s lawful income outside school hours as a disciplinary matter, on terms this vague and with penalties this severe, without first addressing the pay, promotion and workload realities that push so many teachers to earn extra.
Teachers who want to see the clause changed have a clear opening. Public participation is exactly the stage where a broad provision can be narrowed, defined or removed.
If the clause is left as drafted, the first real test will come when a head of institution decides what counts as “gainful employment” and a teacher has to answer for it.
