In a major overhaul of the teacher disciplinary process, the Teachers Service Commission (Amendment) Bill 2024 introduces a new “Internal Review Committee” that fundamentally changes how teachers can seek justice. As of February 2026, the draft law proposes that any teacher dissatisfied with a disciplinary decision must first exhaust the TSC’s internal review mechanisms before they can approach a court of law.
This clause, often referred to by legal experts as the “exhaustion of remedies” mandate, is intended to reduce the massive backlog of teacher-related lawsuits currently clogging the High Court and the Employment and Labour Relations Court.
Creation of the Internal Disciplinary Review Committee
The Bill formally establishes the Internal Disciplinary Review Committee (IDRC). This body will function as an “administrative tribunal” with the power to uphold, reverse, or mitigate decisions made by regional or county disciplinary panels. The TSC argues that this internal layer ensures that “pedagogical experts” rather than “generalist judges” evaluate professional failures.
However, critics from the legal fraternity worry that this creates a system where the “accuser is also the judge,” as the committee members are appointed and paid by the very Commission they are meant to oversee.
“General Evidence” vs. Strict Legal Proof
Perhaps the most legally radical shift in Article 16 is the provision that the Commission shall “not be bound by strict rules of evidence.” This means that in cases of professional misconduct, the TSC can act on “general evidence” or statements regarding a teacher’s character and reputation.
While the Commission claims this allows them to act swiftly against teachers who pose a danger to students (such as in grooming cases where physical evidence is hard to obtain), labor activists warn that it opens the door to hearsay, victimization, and the removal of teachers based on staffroom rumors rather than verifiable facts.
Restricting Immediate Access to Courts
Under the new rules, if a teacher skips the internal appeal process and goes straight to court, the TSC has the legal right to ask the judge to strike out the case. This “cooling-off period” is designed to give the Commission a chance to fix its own administrative errors. However, unions argue that this is a delay tactic.
With over 3,000 disciplinary cases currently in limbo, educators fear that being forced into an internal system will leave them without pay (interdicted) for even longer periods while waiting for the IDRC to hear their appeal.
A Professional Self-Correction Mechanism?
The TSC maintains that this is a step toward making teaching a “self-regulating profession” like medicine or law. By having a specialized internal review body, the Commission believes it can maintain higher standards of professionalism.
For the teacher, this means that the staffroom is no longer just a place of work, but a place of constant legal and ethical accountability where one’s general character can be used as evidence in a disciplinary hearing.
