A coalition of university student leaders has temporarily suspended planned demonstrations against the government’s new higher education funding model following the tragic fire at Endarasha School.

The pause comes as the nation mourns the students who lost their lives in the blaze.

Led by Rocha Madzao, President of the University of Nairobi Student Association, the student leaders condemned the Ministry of Education for failing to ensure adequate safety measures in schools.

“It is heartbreaking that such tragedies continue to occur in this day and age. We mourn with our fellow Kenyans,” Rocha said, expressing profound sorrow over the deaths.

While the leaders’ statements were primarily focused on the Endarasha tragedy, they also took the opportunity to criticize the new university funding model introduced by the government.

Rocha pointed out that the new system excludes many financially needy students, jeopardizing their educational opportunities.

He stressed that although protests are on hold out of respect for the mourning period, they will resume once the country has had time to grieve.

“We urge students who are being sent home due to lack of fees to contact us. We will work with their universities to resolve the issue after the mourning period,” Rocha added.

Naomi Chebet, President of the Kenya Methodist University Student Association, echoed Rocha’s concerns and called for the government to abandon the new funding model.

Chebet argued that despite its flaws, the previous system was preferable to the current approach, which she described as “impractical.”

“If the old funding model was unsustainable, then the new one is even more impractical,” she said. Chebet criticized the government for disregarding student leaders’ concerns despite multiple meetings with the Ministry of Education and the President.

She confirmed that students would resume their protests against the new model once the mourning for the Endarasha victims is over.

The government’s new higher education funding model, which categorizes students into four groups—vulnerable, extremely needy, needy, and less needy—has faced widespread controversy.

Critics, including student leaders, argue that many deserving students are excluded, particularly those from middle-income families who struggle to afford higher education but do not qualify for substantial government aid.

Concerns have also been raised about the model’s implementation, with accusations of inefficiency and insufficient consultation with key stakeholders.