Notwithstanding that unfortunate experience, the parents and teachers subsequently placed their confidence in me by nominating me to serve on Marina’s Board of Governors as its legal member. I accepted that responsibility in good faith, conscious of my professional obligations as a lawyer and my responsibility as a parent to contribute constructively to the governance of an institution entrusted with the education of my children. My intention was to support sound governance, adherence to the school’s constitution, responsible decision-making and respect for established legal and institutional principles.
However, after serving for a relatively short period, I took the decision to resign. My resignation was not prompted by any lack of commitment to the school, but by what I considered a fundamental incompatibility between my own values and principles and the prevailing approach to governance and leadership. For me, remaining in office could never be more important than remaining faithful to the principles of integrity, professional independence, accountability and good governance. Where those principles become irreconcilable with the prevailing institutional culture, resignation is sometimes the more honourable course.
It is equally worth recalling that the former Chairperson eventually tendered her resignation following the public controversy surrounding the offensive email correspondence. In my view, the nature of the remarks and the public attention they attracted made her continued leadership increasingly difficult to defend. Her departure demonstrated that even those occupying distinguished professional and judicial positions are not beyond scrutiny when their conduct as institutional leaders becomes a matter of legitimate public concern. The office of Chairperson does not confer immunity from criticism, and neither judicial status nor professional seniority should be mistaken for an entitlement to unquestioning deference.
The contrast with the present circumstances is particularly striking. Today, Marina is again confronted with serious questions about governance, accountability, parental confidence and the quality of leadership exercised by its Board. Yet the current Chairman remains in office, notwithstanding the escalating disagreements with parents and the extraordinary decision to institute legal proceedings concerning their attempt to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting. I do not suggest that every controversy must automatically result in the resignation of a Chairman. However, there comes a point when responsible leadership requires serious personal reflection on whether one’s continued occupation of office is serving the best interests of the institution or merely prolonging an increasingly damaging confrontation. Leadership should never be reduced to holding on to a position simply because the constitutional machinery permits one to remain there.
The conduct of successive Chairpersons and Boards of Governors must therefore be open to legitimate scrutiny, particularly where their decisions have affected students, parents, employees and the reputation of the institution. A school established upon principles of scholarship, trustworthiness and service should be governed by individuals whose conduct reflects those values. The qualifications, professional standing or social prominence of a Chairperson should never discourage critical examination of their decisions. Good governance is not established by the eminence of those appointed to govern, but by the integrity of their conduct, the fairness of their decisions, the accountability they demonstrate and the respect they accord to those they serve. Ultimately, no Chairman, however distinguished, should consider himself or herself indispensable to an institution whose history, reputation and future are far greater than any individual officeholder.
Regrettably, the governance concerns that characterised aspects of Marina’s leadership under the former Chairperson do not appear to have disappeared with her departure. Subsequent developments under the present Chairman suggest that some of the same troubling attitudes towards parental engagement, criticism and institutional accountability have continued. One might reasonably have expected a change in leadership to usher in a renewed commitment to respectful communication, transparency, inclusivity and constructive relations with parents. However, my experience and the concerns expressed by other parents suggest that this expectation has not consistently been realised.
Another troubling incident involving the current Chairman further illustrates what I consider to be a concerning approach to parental engagement and institutional leadership. I became aware of an incident in which the Chairman reportedly confronted a parent at her place of work following comments the parent had made in a parents’ WhatsApp group expressing dissatisfaction with the substantial increase in school fees. Concerned by what had been brought to my attention, I wrote directly to the Chairman requesting that, if the account was accurate, he should acknowledge the inappropriate nature of the encounter and offer the parent an apology. I also understand that the parent concerned independently requested an apology. Regrettably, to my knowledge, neither communication received even the courtesy of an acknowledgement, let alone a substantive response. One would reasonably expect the Chairman of a respected educational institution to demonstrate sufficient maturity, restraint and respect to engage with parents who raise legitimate concerns, even where he disagrees with their views. An apology, where warranted, is not a demonstration of weakness but of humility, accountability and responsible leadership. Equally, acknowledging correspondence does not require agreement with its contents, it simply reflects elementary courtesy and respect for those whom the institution exists to serve. While the precise circumstances of the reported confrontation should be established fairly, the failure to respond to concerns formally brought to the Chairman’s attention is itself deeply disappointing. A Chairman who responds to criticism with confrontation, or to legitimate correspondence with silence, risks creating the impression that parental concerns are regarded as unwelcome challenges to his authority rather than opportunities for constructive engagement. In my considered opinion, this incident reinforces a broader concern about the deterioration of respectful communication and the apparent unwillingness of Marina’s current leadership to engage meaningfully with parents expressing disagreement.
Yet subsequent developments suggest that the challenges facing Marina were not confined to disciplinary procedures.
Safeguarding concerns have also generated considerable anxiety among sections of the school community. Parents have raised serious allegations concerning reportedly inappropriate text and voice communications involving the Head of the High School and female pupils who were minors. These allegations, including accounts of communications said to have circulated publicly, have understandably prompted questions about professional boundaries, child protection and the adequacy of the school’s safeguarding response.
It is important to emphasise that allegations, however disturbing, must not be confused with findings of guilt. The individuals concerned are entitled to due process, and the privacy, dignity and welfare of the children must remain paramount. Nevertheless, allegations of this nature require prompt, independent and appropriately documented investigation, together with necessary protective measures.
The questions arising are straightforward. When did the school authorities become aware of the allegations? What immediate steps were taken to protect the children concerned? Was the matter referred to the appropriate authorities? Were relevant communications and other evidence preserved? What role did the Board exercise in supervising the response? Were the affected families provided with appropriate information and support?
There have also been assertions within the parent community that the official concerned subsequently left the jurisdiction before the matter was fully addressed. That assertion requires independent verification, as does any suggestion that a departure impeded investigation or accountability. It would be improper to pronounce conclusions without the relevant records. However, the Board should be in a position to provide an appropriate account of its safeguarding response, subject to the protection of children, confidentiality and any ongoing investigations.
Sections 3 and 4 of The Children’s Act 2005 are instructive in this regard. Section 3 establishes the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration in determining questions concerning children, while section 4 addresses the protection, care and wellbeing of children and the responsibilities of institutions entrusted with their care.
These provisions reinforce the principle that safeguarding is not an administrative formality. It is a fundamental responsibility that must inform the conduct of every educational institution. A safeguarding policy is only as effective as the willingness and ability of those responsible for its implementation to act decisively when concerns arise.
The protection of children must never be subordinated to considerations of institutional reputation, personal relationships or administrative convenience. Indeed, the credibility of a school is strengthened, not diminished, when its governing authorities demonstrate that allegations of misconduct will be addressed seriously, transparently where appropriate, and without fear or favour.
Concerns about the school’s governance have also coincided with reports from members of its community of significant departures of pupils, teachers and administrative staff. Particular reference has been made to a newer educational establishment said to have attracted substantial numbers of individuals previously associated with Marina, including former pupils, teachers, administrative personnel and Board members.
The precise scale of these movements, including claims about the proportion of former Marina personnel and pupils at that institution, requires verification against reliable enrolment and employment records. Nevertheless, the broader issue should not be dismissed.
Where a school with Marina’s longstanding reputation experiences significant departures of pupils or staff, responsible leadership should undertake an objective assessment of the reasons. Are families dissatisfied with educational standards? Are school fees becoming increasingly difficult to justify? Are experienced teachers leaving because of remuneration, working conditions or management practices? Are governance concerns affecting confidence in the institution?
These are questions that an effective Board should ask before the consequences become irreversible.
The answer cannot always be that competition is inevitable or that parents are free to move their children elsewhere. Both propositions may be true, but neither removes the Board’s responsibility to understand why families and employees might be losing confidence in the institution.
Similarly, concerns have been raised about employment-related litigation, including an account of proceedings reportedly brought by a former accounts clerk arising from an allegedly unfair dismissal. It has been asserted that those proceedings resulted in a substantial monetary award against the school. The judgment and amount should be verified before they are treated as established facts. However, the existence of such concerns, alongside publicly reported historical employment disputes involving Marina, reinforces the importance of scrutinising employment practices, disciplinary processes and internal grievance procedures.
An institution that teaches its pupils integrity, fairness, accountability and respect for the rule of law must demonstrate those principles in the treatment of its own employees.
Educational excellence cannot be sustained indefinitely where questions concerning governance, personnel management, safeguarding and stakeholder confidence remain unresolved. A school may possess impressive facilities, employ qualified teachers and continue to produce successful students while simultaneously experiencing weaknesses in its governance arrangements. Recognising those weaknesses does not diminish its achievements; rather, it provides an opportunity to preserve them.
Against this background, the controversy surrounding the substantial increase in school fees in 2026 became a defining issue in the deteriorating relationship between the Board and sections of the parent community.
The increase provoked considerable concern among parents, many of whom considered it excessive, financially burdensome and inadequately explained. The principal grievance was not necessarily that school fees should never increase. Every responsible parent recognises that educational institutions face rising costs arising from inflation, staff remuneration, maintenance, infrastructure development and the continuing need to invest in quality teaching and learning.
The fundamental objection was the apparent absence of meaningful consultation with the parents who would be required to bear the additional financial burden.
A school sustained principally by parental contributions should not treat parents as indispensable when fees are due but dispensable when decisions concerning those fees are being made.
That, to my mind, goes to the heart of the present controversy.
By Omar F M’Bai
To be continued
