The speaker of parliament, Annet Anita Among has distanced herself from an inquiry by vice chancellor Prof Barnabas Nawangwe into the setting of a constitutional law exam at Makerere University’s Law School.
The May 11 Principles of Constitutional Law II exam for first-year students centred on the UK sanctions against the speaker and the subsequent imaginary engagement with the leader of the opposition Joel Bazekezi Ssenyonyi. The exam also referenced the would-be reaction of President Yoweri Museveni, director of public prosecutions (DPP) among others.
Four days after, Nawangwe on May 15 ordered a probe of the lecturer who set the referenced question. The vice chancellor raised concerns about the contents of the exam, asking whether it met the academic standards of a premier university like Makerere. Nawangwe also asked the probe team to establish whether there were ethical issues that fell below expected standards.
“…specifically address. i) whether the paper meets the minimum academic standards of Makerere as a premium university; ii) whether the re ethical issues set by the same standards,” Nawangwe wrote.
He asked that the board also investigate the past three papers set by the same examiner and requested the principal to submit a report to the Senate for discussion.
In response Among yesterday appeared to appreciate academic freedom in learning institutions, emphasizing the importance of allowing students to learn without interference. She noted that she and parliament unreservedly submit to public scrutiny, which she believes is fundamental for a strong, representative legislature and therefore, she found no fault in the exam set for the students.
“I have received media reports of disciplinary processes being instituted against Makerere University School of Law lecturers on an exam that referred to myself and a sitting of parliament. I hold the view that this is a free society in which freedom of expression is guaranteed and sacrosanct, including academic freedom protected under Article 29(1)(b) which protects academic freedom in the following terms: “freedom of thought, conscience, and belief which shall include academic freedom in institutions of learning,” Among wrote on X.
“…I believe our duty will be to give the students unbiased context on what exactly happened during the sitting in issue, so that, as academicians, they form their own opinion on the conduct of public affairs and how they will improve them when it is their turn to be in charge of the management of our society. Let the children learn,” she added.
Now a section of academia has also come out to defend the lecturer who set the exam, saying there was nothing wrong with the way the paper was set. Others say the inquiry called by Nawangwe is an attempt to trample on academic freedom. There is a line of thought that Nawangwe acted within his means by trying to find out whether the lecturer followed the procedures.
But, largely, the academia interviewed for this story argue that there is nothing wrong with the examination. Makerere University Academic Staff Association (MUASA) accuses Nawangwe of implied or direct attack on academic freedom. The Uganda Law Society (ULS), in defending the lecturer and the right to academic freedom has raised similar concerns.
While the examination has attracted attention, academics caution that essential elements like university processes, quality assurance, and assessment standards are being overshadowed in the controversy. Interviews and document reviews reveal that for an examination to be administered to students, it must meet certain standards, with several procedures in place to ensure this.
Some of the issues raised in the Nawangwe letter are key requirements under quality assurance by the National Council for Higher Education (NCHE).According to NCHE, quality assurance regulations, and standards of the assessment are critical and institutions must put in place mechanisms for quality assurance in examinations including, vetting of papers, proper conduct of examinations, and marking by both internal and external examiners.
However, a broader debate has emerged regarding the content of the examination, with opinions varying widely on microblogging platforms like X following Nawangwe’s letter. But, largely the academia interviewed for this story argue that there is nothing wrong with the examination. The academic board of the Law School similarly voiced concerns, with some members initially declining to attend the emergency meeting. However, they later resolved to attend under protest, stating that they would refrain from attending such meetings in the future.
Prof Joe Oloka-Onyango, the subject head and chief examiner, explicitly disregarded the meeting as an infringement on his academic freedom. He subsequently excused himself from the meeting.Dr Robert Kakuru, chairperson of MUASA, also noted that the system currently in place at Makerere tends to stifle academic freedom, particularly on issues linked to politics.
He views Nawangwe’s letter as a direct and implicit attack on academic freedom, which could significantly undermine the quality of teaching, learning, and examinations at the university.“The proposed investigations committee should be disbanded with immediate effect,” he noted
Leave a Reply