Why forcing graduates through Kenya School of Law is outdated, unjust

For thousands of Kenyan law students studying in and outside the country, completing a four-year law degree is not enough to qualify as an advocate of the High Court. The next compulsory step is joining at the Kenya School of Law (KSL) for the Advocates Training Programme, a one-year diploma programme designed to bridge the gap between academic learning and legal practice.

While the intention behind KSL is noble, its execution appears to be outdated, ineffective, and progressively exclusionary. It is time Kenya reimagined its legal training model by doing away with the compulsory KSL requirement and introducing a standardised National Bar exam similar to the model used in professions like pharmacy, accountancy, and engineering.

One of the strongest criticisms from students and legal scholars is the redundancy of KSL’s curriculum. Subjects such as civil and criminal procedure, criminal law, professional ethics, conveyancing, and legal drafting are all covered often in depth during the undergraduate LLB degree. The repetition wastes students’ time and financial resources. Why spend another year studying what you’ve already been tested and passed in university and then re-do it at the diploma level?

Besides, KSL is expensive. Between tuition fees, accommodation, exam costs, and living expenses in Nairobi ‘Karen’, many law graduates, especially from marginalised or rural communities, simply cannot afford to attend. This reality creates a two-tier legal profession: Those who can pay their way through KSL and those who, despite being equally qualified, are locked out due to financial constraints.

In a country where education is meant to be a pathway to opportunity, this system reinforces inequality and throttles potential.

KSL has also earned a reputation for outrageously low pass rates. Some years, only 20–35 per cent of students pass on their first attempt. While the institution argues this reflects poor preparation from universities, others argue it’s a symptom of institutional gatekeeping, inconsistent marking, and poor instruction. A fair, objective Bar exam would assess students purely on merit not on where they studied or who marked their paper.

Whereas in many jurisdictions including the US, Europe and Asia, law graduates sit for standardised Bar exams after university. These exams are rigorous, but they allow students the flexibility to prepare independently or through private institutions. Graduates are not forced into one central training school. Instead, they sit for a Bar exam that assesses their enthusiasm to practice law. This model encourages flexibility, competition, and innovation in legal education.

Even in Kenya, other regulated professions have adopted this approach. Pharmacists take exams set by the Pharmacy and Poisons Board. Accountants are certified through Kenya Accountants and Secretaries National Examinations Board Kasneb. Medical practitioners go through Kenya Medical Practitioners and Dentists Council. Legal training should take a similar approach as well.

A centralised national Bar exam, open to all LLB graduates, would democratise access to legal practice. It would allow students to prepare through university programmes, private tutors, or self-study whatever works best for them. The legal profession could still maintain high standards while reducing financial and institutional bottlenecks that currently limit access.

Notably, such a system would put an end to the monopoly currently held by KSL. Kenya’s legal profession is facing modern challenges of technological disruption, international commercial law, alternative dispute resolution, and a growing demand for legal services in underserved communities. Legal training must be equally adaptive. A rigid, bureaucratic model is not fit for a 21st-century profession. Reforming the system to allow for a flexible, exam-based approach would align Kenya’s legal education with global best practices and better prepare young lawyers for a dynamic legal market.

The KSL was created in a different era, for a different legal landscape. Today, it risks delaying careers, deepening inequality, and turning a noble profession into an elite club. We need a new vision that is inclusive, efficient, and future facing. Let’s scrap the KSL diploma and replace it with a standardised, transparent Bar exam.