Speaker of Parliament Anita Among. PHOTO/ FILE
Hours after Makerere University School of Law came under fire for setting an exam paper depicting real parliamentary sessions coupled with real names, the Speaker, Anita Among has come out to say that as an institution, they welcome public scrutiny.
Ms Among whose name was at the centre stage of the case study in the examination paper, in her X post, says public scrutiny is a pillar upon which Parliament is founded.
“I have received media reports of the disciplinary process 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 promoted under Article 29 (1) (b),” Ms Among stated.
She added: “As Parliament, we unreservedly submit to public scrutiny, which we believe is the pillar upon which a strong, representative legislature is founded.”
However, Ms Among was quick to say that the examiners are duty-bound to give the proper context of what exactly transpired in the House and not give unbiased context.
“I, therefore, find no fault in the exam set for the students and 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,” she said.
Prof Barnanabas Nawangwe, in his capacity as the vice chancellor of Makerere University, in a May 15 letter asked Dr Ronald Naluwairo, the Acting Principal School of Law “to call an emergency meeting of the School Academic Board to investigate the [Principles of Constitutional Law II] paper.”
This was after one of the questions in the paper depicted a real parliamentary session with real names, including that of the House Speaker and Leader of Opposition in Parliament (LoP).
Core to the parliamentary case study was that Speaker Among who was projected to have been stung by the recent sanctions imposed against her by the UK government. The House Speaker consequently vowed to deal with those writing malicious reports about her.
The examiner(s), further in the case study, project the Speaker to be trying to mount a fight-back via a “Speaker’s Bill” that she introduced in the House. The said Bill allegedly contained several provisions like: no person shall adversely comment on the office of the Speaker and particularly about the person of Anita Among; and any person who violates the above provision, commits an offense against the people of Uganda and is liable to a five-year jail sentence on conviction.
The parliamentary case study goes on to note that LoP Joel Besekezi Ssenyonyi stood up and protested the new Bill introduced by the Speaker and its process. In response to Mr Ssenyonyi’s protest, the Speaker said: “You Joelo, shut up. Are you one of those bum-shafters who is after my life?. I’m the Speaker of Parliament of Uganda, Queen of Bukedea, and Conqueress of the British Empire; in this House, I can do whatever I please.”
The parliamentary case study goes on to show that when Mr Ssenyonyi persisted with his protest, he was expelled from the House by the Speaker. The said Bill was passed into law despite lack of quorum before being assented to by President Museveni.
“That afternoon, the Speaker took the Bill to President Museveni for his assent. In response, the President told the speaker ‘This is a very good Bill, it only misses specific mention of me as the Fountain of Honour, mama Janet, the First Lady, and all my children; let me add that clause in and sign',” the case study further reads in part.
Adding: “The Bill was duly amended and declared to have come into force on January 26, 1986, the date on which the National Resistance Army (NRA) took over power in Uganda.”
The case study continues to allude that the DPP received a letter from the Speaker, directing those proceedings in the SPAM be commenced against Hon Ssenyonyi as Dr Johhny Spear and Agana Agana, two social media activists who organised the second social media parliamentary exhibition in which they criticised the Speaker of her “profligate spending” and “lack of sexual mores”.
Accordingly, the three were arrested and were due to appear before court.
At the end of the case study, the examiner/s tasked the students to highlight constitutional law issues raised.
The students were also tasked to critically point out their implications on the rule of law, democratic governance, and constitutionalism in contemporary Uganda.
However, the said letter had kicked up a storm among legal minds with the Makerere University Academic Staff Association (Muasa) describing the same as “an attack on academic freedom”.
Dr Robert Kakuru, the Muasa chairperson, on Wednesday said Prof Nawangwe’s letter to Dr Naluwairo is “a direct, and implied attack on academic freedom, and will severely cripple the quality of teaching, learning, and examination in the university.”
Dr Kakuru also made clear that the “proposed investigation committee should be disbanded with immediate effect.”
Weighing in, the president of the Uganda Law Society Bernard Oundo said academic freedom encompasses a series of other widely accepted human rights, including freedom of opinion, expression, association, and assembly.
"Teaching and examining students about current affairs is critical in producing graduates who can effectively address contemporary problems and contribute to societal progress. Academic freedom is the freedom of lecturers, teachers, students, and academic institutions to pursue knowledge wherever it may lead, without undue or unreasonable interference in their research and teaching activities," Mr Oundo said Wednesday evening.
Adding: "Academic freedom involves the freedom to engage in the entire range of activities related to knowledge production. While aware that there are limitations to most human rights and freedoms, ULS is certain that the impugned exams and others like it involved a hypothetical question within the confines of academic freedom and learning as it aimed to encourage students to think beyond theoretical knowledge and apply their acquired understanding to current real-life situations.
“Indeed a glance at other examinations reveals that this is not the first time that such questions or scenarios would be set for a subject of this nature or a law examination. This level of intimidation insinuated by the university authorities is a threat to academic freedom and should have no place in our educational institutions generally but institutions of higher learning in particular.”
The Leader of Opposition in Parliament, Mr Ssenyonyo who was also cited in the case study, described Prof. Nawangwe’s letter as “intimidating”.
“This kind of intimidation should have no place at a university because it is a threat to academic freedom. Makerere is not a primary school, it is a university which is meant to produce thinkers; so we have sunk this low that an academic institution can’t teach and use relevant examples that are around us,” he wondered in an X post.
Article 29 (1)( b) states that every person shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and belief which shall include academic freedom in institutions of learning.
