VERBATIM: Transcript of Makerere Senate Meeting for Which Nawangwe Suspended Officials

The Vice-Chancellor of Makerere University, Professor Barnabas Nawangwe, on Thursday, suspended five members of the Senate after they wrote a letter to the University Council in which they published minutes of the 181st Meeting ofthe Senate.

The transcription of the recording of the meeting held on December 11, 2024, is here published verbatim.

Nawangwe: We have only one more item remaining and that is the report of the task force. And so aah... if there are any people who are interested in this matter, we advise that they leave the room.

[Prof. Henry M. Alinaitwe walks out]

Nawangwe: Prof. Buyinza, if you are leaving the room you just leave completely. You are not going? Laughs [laughter]...

Okay.So.It seems the technology is..s it still failing? Okay. Maybe in the interest of time...because I understand they are requesting the technician to come. We thought this should be... the report of the task force should be displayed; but in the interest of time we can start then they can display when they come. Because the impact it creates, the facts are on page 18.

So now that that it has been resolved ah.... I will invite the person I requested to chair this task force to present. But before she begins, I need to give a background - know here has been a lot of talk about this matter, some of which was absolutely unnecessary...even some challenging the power of Council to do certain things.

Council, by law, is the supreme organ of the University and they have every right to check processes within the University. And, Council received a petition from one of the candidates for DVC F and A citing flaws in the process and unfairness. And Council then directed Senate to check if its processes were actually according to the regulations, including the guidelines given by Council.

You willemember that we have not had a substantial DVC F and A, I think this is coming to five years. And that is because after the last exercise, a candidate went to court overturn the appointment of the person who had been appointed to DVC substantially at that time. And the court made certain rulings. And after those rulings, Council decided to come up with guidelines to guide the search of the DVC and they have the rights because they are empowered by law.

So, the search process had to take into account all those guidelines, their own advert and the criteria within the advert and the guidelines provided by Council. Aah we of course, I think, many of you will realise that I don't delay with matters here and I do what you say. Okay. You say let's do so like this and may be sometimes I stop and check now that I am seeing these things, but anyway; I appointed team a task force to sieve out this matter and come and present to Senate so that Senate can then respond to the Council. And, I requested Professor Nkabala to Chair that Committee and 1 will request her now to present her report.

Prof. Nkabala: Thank you Chair. Colleagues, as you see at the end of the presentation the team members are wholly represented. So I will read verbatim on our findings. The Vice Chancellor requested us to look at the request from Council and advise him to help him advise them.

So our opinion is, we made reference to the assignment that was given to us. On the subject matter; which iS on the processes of the search committee for the position of second Deputy Vice chancellor, Finance and Administration. Aah at its second meeting because we held two meetings which was held on 15th. the select committee deliberated on the scope of the work assigned which entailed scrutinizing.

At the first meeting, we needed to understand the assignment so the team had decided to understand what the assignment was; aah from the appointing authority. So, aah we used the documents which were at our disposal especially on the matter pertaining to the decision of Council.

And three issues were raised by council: Whether the searching committee on the position of the second Deputy Vice Chancellor complied with the advert. The second was, whether the search committee for the position of the second aah Deputy Vice Chancellor complied with the guidelines set by the University Council.

And three, whether there was fairness at every stage. After studying and evaluating available documents, the committee concluded that there were no glaring mistakes by the search committee. On the specific issues referenced, that is, the three critical matters:; this is our aah observation.

On whether the search committee on the position of second deputy vice chancellor complied with the advert, according to the search committee report; the writing of the advert was guided by the review of relevant documents including the detailed job descriptions, macro and micro structures for the positions in the administrative and support of Makerere University November 2018 see that appendix on page 18 in the report of the search committee. Makerere University Human Resource Manual as amended 2022 and then our observation was the search committee complied with the advert as reflected on page 9 of the search committee report.

Part B whether the search committee for the position of the second Deputy Vice Chancellor complied with the guidelines set by the University Council. Aah on this of whether the search committee complied with the guidelines; the search committee received guidelines from the University Council and these guidelines are in Appendix 1 and Appendix 4 on page 7 of the search committee report,

And we actually aah observed that they complied with them. The search committee complied with the guidelines as reflected on page 13 of their report. And they make are conclusion that; "based on the above the search committee hereby represents the following names that is: Professor Alinaitwe Mwanaki Henry, Associate Professor Kirenga James Bruce and Professor Mugisha Anthony for consideration pursuant to section 32 of UOTIA 2001 as amended

3.

And on part C whether there was fairness at every stage. Confirming whether there was fairness at every stage, the search committee highlights the general guiding principles of the search processes on page 6 of the search commitee report. Based on the above findings, the search commitee complied with all the guidelines. What is our overall objective evaluation?

The recommendation of one person to the position of Second Deputy Vice Chancellor as opposed to the three as indicated in the guidelines for the search processes was a decision of Senate rather than the search committee. Accordingly, the matter on compliance with the guidelines as requested by Council merits re-tabling in this Senate for reconsideration by Senate. And this observation was made based on the fact that we were not aware whether Senate received the guidelines because the search committee received them and actually complied with them.

On whether senate received them we were not sure, but we realized that; that decision which was against the guidelines was one of Senate and not the search committe. The report was signed by the members, myself, Associate Professor Julius Omona, Professor Nabende, Prof. Yazid and Prof. Dominica Dipio. I present.

Thanks.

Prof. Nawangwe: Okay. Thank you very much. You also shied to say what you recommend.

Prof. Nkabala: Chair we recommended re-tabling the matter to Senate on condition that they have the guidelines. Thank you Chair.

Prof. Nawangwe: Can you share what the guidelines say, since you had them.

Prof. Nkabala: Secretariat. You didn't clap for... [clapping of hands mixed with murmurs]

Chair, the secretariat to the committee was the secretariat to the search committee, and Iam requesting that with your permission secretariat presents the guidelines. Thank you.

Mrs. Patience Mushengyezi: Chairperson and members, the guidelines are contained in the report of the search committee.

Council search guidelines: Number one was that; the search committee identifies and proposes to Senate a maximum of five suitable candidates for the position. Two, that the search committee shall report to Senate within period of two months from the date of council decision.

Three, that Senate considers the report of the search committee and recommends a maximum of three candidates for the position to the University Council. The Senate shall consider the report of the search committe and report to Council within 15 days from the date of receiving the search committee report.

I think we were focusing on guideline three,

Prof. Nawangwe: Okay. Of course, when the search committee has basically been cleared that it did according to the guidelines and they presented three names but senate decided to send one, Now, for those of you who know the case, the ruling by the judge was that, in the case, the previous case, the judge ruled that the senate was made to rubber stamp by presenting one name.

That's why council ruled that there must be several and said maximum of five because they didn't want also to have too many for the search committee to bring to senate and Senate to send a maximum of three to Council. So, that's where the issue is. And I don't know whether the Director Legal is here

Director legal, can you guide 1 know that you know the rules. Let me leave it.I do not want to spread the rumors on social news. Yes, please guide on this matter.

Director Legal: Thank you Chair. I will pick from where you just stopped. That when the terms of reference specify a maximum number, aah sometimes its misinterpreted. Some people say they are asking for a maximum so they have not stopped us from giving the minimum, because that is the cap; so we can send fewer.

But the court in its interpretation of that particular term ruled that if you send one candidate, you have essentially told the Council to just rubber stamp and you have taken away the discretion that they have to choose another person. So, when you send one name you are essentially telling them appoint this one. And court has ruled that that is wrong. So in essence the people who are supposed to be sent are supposed to be more than one to give council the room to exercise some discretion in the matter.

Although and this purely from my legal point of view, we need to also consider if Senate, after taking the earlier decision, can now go back on it.

Prof. Jude Ssempebwa: It cannot. It is functus officio.

Director Legal: But that is question for another day. That is a question it's something we need to explore. It's something we need to explore.. we can't say it now in black and white but it iS something We need to consider having taken an earlier decision can now senate go back on it in light of the principle of being functus officio you have discharged your earlier duty. Can you now go back on it? So that's something we have to think about.

A senate member: There is a hand there. There is a hand there.

Prof. Nawangwe: Haven't told you. And because you are always forcing yourself I won't give you.

Prof. Naluwaliro: Yeah chair and members, I will start from where the Chief Legal has ended and for me I think the question that she is leaving us with has serious implications for future processes of this nature. And my view is that Senate is now functus officio as far as this matter is concerned and I want to propose, the task force has probably done its work. It has answered the questions it was asked to address and so it's really, ideally actually we would not even be sending those responses because we are generally functus officio

A member of senate: What does that mean?

Prof. Naluwaliro: Functus officio, like director legal has explained, is that you were given a task and once you executed that task, ok, you adopted the report, and submitted the report acted upon that report, then your authority ended at that point. So, and it's okay by the way Council and VC I agree with you that as the supreme governing body council has the duty to ensure that guidelines, rules and roles are followed in this process, so it is within the powers of Council, but for me the challenge is Council ought not to have brought this thing back to Senate. It could use any other means available to it and even probably constitute a sub-committee of Council to determine these questions and take a decision. I submit.

Mr. Daniel Kiganda: Thank you VC. Aah well will not also deviate so much from the submission of the principal School of Law. As senate We did our part and we believe or we do not want to think that council is tricking us into, dragging us into committing illegalities.

Reviewing our own decision as the principal as the director lega have presented as the functus officio position of senate. believe in the submission that was done to communicate our decision to council aah in that letter that was done to commit our decision then; of senate to council, the letter was clear but as he says it is within their mandate and power to request and find out or to seek to find out that we dully followed the guidelines.

I believe what Senate would do or right now to respond to that,is to submit the detailed search committee report that senate received, adopted and disposed of and communicated to whose decision Senate communicated to Council. I believe in doing that, sending that search committee report they will read it in details to find out whether there is any illegality that was committed other than even taking ourselves into having this Committee, task force and everything.

That is my humble submission. Let's submit the search committee report as it is

Prof. Nawangwe: Please address yourself properly. When you say other than having, you are trying to challenge the powers of the vice chancellor.

Mr. Daniel Kiganda: No I don't.

Prof. Nawangwe: Ah, keep quiet.

Mr. Daniel Kiganda: I commented as a member of Senate.

[Laugher]

Prof. Nawangwe: I want us to discuss because the director legal made two positions. But those of I you who are responding are only addressing one. Director Legal said the judge said you should not send one name. That is very clear. But then she said, but then we already took a decision and according to the lawyers they are saying sanctus whatever?

So you have to address the two. What is then your recommendation? So the Principal Law is saying Council should sort of find another having known that we did not follow those guidelines

A member: Chair it is not true

Prof. Nawangwe: Excuse me. Don't answer me... Yes, but please be brief.

Prof. Jude Ssempebwa: Prof. will be very brief. And I will respond to the first concern that Chief Legal Officer raised. Ah, Chief legal officer, we have the rules of statutory interpretation. The literal rule says: ordinary words must be given their ordinary meaning. One candidate is within the maximum of three. But that doesn't make council a rubber stamp. Counocil could approve or not approve. That is its role,

Prof. Nawangwe: I think..you..she is a lawyer..Prof. Prof., she is a lawyer and you are not.

Prof. Jude Ssempebwa: Eeee. I am a professor, I am paralegal. But I wish to clarify

Prof. Nawangwe: She is just summarizing, I read the whole judgment.

Prof. Jude Ssempebwa: Yes. I wish to clarify that, Justice Ssekaana talked about the search committee coming to senate which senate has the mandate to select and the search committee had taken that role away from it.

Member: Yes

Prof. Jude Ssempebwa: In the instant case, Section 32 gives senate the mandate to recommend, that...

Prof. Nawangwe: We know more of that...I think she said all that

Prof. Jude Ssempebwa: That of Council to approve.

Prof. Nawangwe: But she also told you

Prof. Jude Ssempebwa: I submit

Prof. Nawangwe: Yeah. She also told you that by implication you should not make Council rubber stamp.

Prof. Jude Ssempebwa: It cannot rubber stamp because it approves or refuses.

Prof. Nawangwe: No. You were a member of that search committee,

Prof. Arthur Tugume: Yes

Prof. Nawangwe: You are safer not to talk.

Prof. Moses Musinguzi: Thank you chair. The task force in their report they indicated that the search committee did its work and did not default any of the guidelines. They indicated hat, senate defaulted the guidelines. So I want us first of all to get clarity on whether we actually defaulted on the guidelines. Then ater that, then we decide on what to do, Did we default or we did not default?

Prof. Robert Wamala: Thank you very much chair. I am not going to talk as a legal person because 1 am not. will speak as a teacher because that is what I am. If 1 set an exam and give a I marking guide, then I don't think anybody the student no has the right to come and change the marking guide and then consider themselves correct.

That is my simple interpretation. From what has been submitted, it is clear that senate defaulted actually. That is clear. So to me now the only question is what is the way forward? Otherwise we cannot stand here and begin to debate about what we defaulted Chair, Isubmit.

Prof. Nawangwe: I think to keep this debate short, let us marry the two. According to what the director legal said it is clear that arising from the guidelines which arose out of the court ruling, Senate defaulted from sending the three names. And I don't blame Senate because the search commite should have said the guidelines say this and we recommend, but they didn't do that. But that is okay.

And the other one is that, according to what the lawyers are saying, we cannot go back on our decision and we leave council to take a decision on what to decide on this matter given the information it has. And including of course the report from the task force which has said yes, on this matter senate defaulted. But council can take its decision whether we repeat the process or they handle it as is. Is that okay?

Member of Senate: Yes

Other members of Senate: No. It is not okay.

Prof. Jude Ssempebwa: But Prof, they didn't say we defaulted. That thing didn't say we defaulted? May be they can display it again.

Prof. Nawangwe: Yes Prof. go on.

Prof. Tumps Ireeta: Thank you, Mr. VC. You see now let's talk as human beings; not as a teacher now, You see when the appointing authority realizes that there could be some grey areas, of what we did as senate. And have that courtesy, of saying that by the way you brought this thing to us but we see something here. think it was a good gesture or attitude of council. So, two, 1 think we should go with what the VC is saying because from the guidelines presented by the Chairperson it's in black and white that we should have sent three names and it has been now identified by ourselves.

Prof. Jude Ssempebwa: How? How have you identified it?

Prof. Nawangwe: Can you please, I might send some members out.

Prof. Tumps Ireeta: Chair. When you were submitting I was very quiet. did not interrupt you. Now you are interrupting me. I have the right to speak as a senator. So, when they identified that there is a gap there, a maximum of three and think - may be in their wisdom as council, that's what they identified.

When they saw it was one name out of, so as you guided chair, why don't we go with that we as senate because that was not the problem of the search committee. It was us here and if you re-call in that meeting, the VC said that we have been sending one name.

So we all of us didn't go into the details and in that same meeting 1 think Dr. who? One of the presenters here was saying that these documents should be sent earlier so that members be reading so that we internalize everything and we make objective decisions. So just because we just saw it there, we couldn't have seen it ourselves We should admit that we could have errored. So let's send back the report and say we didn't do this but we cannot go back against our what, our decision. I mean, sometimes it is good to be frank, and be open. I submit.

Prof. Nawangwe: Yes. And I think that's the position we should take; we cannot go back on our decision even if we realize that we did not fuly follow the guidelines of Council and council to take its decision, Okay?

[Meeting ends]