Friday, 16 May 2003
Parliament met at 10.38 a.m. in Parliament House, Kampala.
PRAYERS
(The Deputy Speaker, Ms Rebecca Kadaga, in the Chair.)
The House was called to order.
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHAIR
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I just have a small amendment on the
Order Paper. It was proposed we move item 4, which was 5 to where it is now. It has been
done already; so, it is okay.
LAYING OF PAPERS
REPORT ON THE MANAGEMENT OF KCC AFFAIRS
THE CHAIRPERSON, COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Mrs Beatrice
Byenkya): Madam Speaker, on 5 December 2001, hon. Dr Nsaba Butulo brought before
Parliament a motion seeking to streamline the KCC affairs. On 19 December 2002, the
committee did present before the House an Interim Report on KCC because we had not
completed the investigations.
However, I wish to take the opportunity to state that we have finally come up with the final
report on KCC. Therefore, I take this opportunity to lay on the Table the report probing the
management of KCC affairs.
THE DEPUTY SPEKAER: The report will be circulated to the members and discussed at
an appropriate time.
PRESENTATION, CONSIDERATION AND PRESENTATION OF THE REPORT OF THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE LAND (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2002
THE CHAIRPERSON, SELECT COMMITTEE ON LANDS (Mr Fred Ruhindi):
Madam Speaker, my committee has so far got in its hands the draft report. We are doing our
best to harmonise our positions on the draft report. I have been in consultation with your
office on this matter with the relevant officials. I believe that it is prudent to come out with a
position that is harmonised and implementable. So, we request that we present our report
when we come back from recess.
THE MINISTER OF STATE (LANDS) (Mr Baguma Isoke): Thank you, Madam Speaker.
I am visibly disturbed because this Parliament considered the bill and determined all the
issues to finality as I presented them, except the question of family land that came from the
committee.
I have seen on the Order Paper today that this Session is due for prorogation, which means
that the committees will no longer be functional, and any business that has not been passed
will lapse. Can I be guided on how to proceed?
I have got difficulty, because as I was introducing the bill, I did explain that the bill was
seeking to help Government to implement the Land Act. And going by our programme, the
recess will take no less than one month, and when we come back, we be will be receiving the
1
budget proposals. And another recess when we come back in July, we will be on the budget
for not less than one month.
Implementation of the Land Act is at stake. Can this Parliament do justice to the Executive to
consider taking the land bill to the Third Reading with exception of this proposal that did not
come from Government? We save only that proposal, and when it is passed, an amendment
can be effected in October when we have resumed business after the debate. I wish the
position of the Executive to be well understood.
Now as we recall, Madam Speaker, the Land (Amendment) Bill dealt with land tribunals with
a decision of reducing them by doing away with sub county tribunals, town council and
division tribunals. We went further to relocate the tribunals in another institution of
Government and the Judiciary. There are management, financial, personnel and physical
movements that have got to be effected.
We also in the amendments did away with land committees at parish level, and instituted
them at sub county level. These have got to be in a place in order to serve the public.
At one time, Madam Speaker, we imagined that the land tribunals would come into effect the
moment the law came into effect. Local councils were no longer handling land disputes;
Magistrates Courts were no longer handling land disputes, yet the land tribunals could not be
instituted overnight. There has been economic paralysis all over the country; there has been
violence and even loss of life and property because our movements were not well coordinated
- (Interruption)- let me present my concern so that it is well understood.
Now the Land (Amendment) Bill did not introduce any new creature, but it was rationalising
land management institutions to fall within the medium budget framework of Government.
The issues are so serious that now I am calling for Parliament to pass a land bill as Parliament
had considered it to finality, save only the provision for co-ownership of land by family
members. So, I submit.
MAJ. RWAMIRAMA: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I would like to be clarified.
Given the circumstances and the controversy of the issue that was committed to the
committee, is it not in the interest of Government that the committee brings a proposal so that
we pass a law that can be implemented by Government?
MR RUHINDI: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. As much as I take cognisance of
the minister’s concerns, but I am also aware what has really created or caused the impasse and
the paralysis in the implementation of the Land Act as he puts it, is because of a misconceived
law which was not properly thought over, and that is what actually caused that paralysis.
Madam Speaker, the issue we are handling is not a simple one, and you should also know that
we have now taken only two weeks on this subject. And if you recall, the broad terms of
reference you gave us, we will not be doing justice to this particular subject if we brought
even this report today.
As I said, we have a draft report; we are harmonising it. Now assuming you passed the Land
Bill as you proposed, honourable minister; you will pass it together with section 40, which
will remain on the Statute Book, which is giving you a headache in implementation and that is
what we are also reviewing at the moment. So, I think our request is appropriate, and it is
also in the interest of the minister. I don’t know why he is actually pushing this matter so far.
MR NDAWULA: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Really from what the
Chairperson of the Select Committee has just said, that the issue under discussion is so
important; it needs wide investigation; it really shows that we have got to give it justice by
2
doing so much on it. But at the same time, we all know about our calendar. The next time we
shall deal with these bills will be sometime in September.
Right now, there is a Land Act which is not operational. The import of the amendment bill
was to make that Land Act operational. And the clause that is under consideration now, the
Family Land Rights or the co-ownership clause for that matter, really has so little
administrative problems it can cause- (Interruption)- Madam Speaker, if I can be protected to
make my submission.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, honourable members.
MR NDAWULA: Really what I am driving at is that this is a Land (Amendment) Bill
showing clearly that there is a Land Act that is being amended, and really there is no certainty
that when we pass this Land (Amendment) Bill, that will be the last Land (Amendment) Bill.
So, really I don’t see any problem since we considered all the other clauses in the amendment
bill; there is already a Land Act, it will cause no harm –(Interruption)
MR BYABAGAMBI: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I want to thank the honourable
member for giving way. I understand this Land Act was passed by the 6 th Parliament. It was
not operationalised, and it is about two years ago when it was passed. I think Uganda is still
there, and we are still there, and land is still there. Can’t the minister really be patient for
only four months so that we get a comprehensive Land Act, which will be operationalised?
MR NDAWULA: Madam Speaker, we are creating an unnecessary vacuum. We can have
this Land (Amendment) Bill passed; and that particular clause being talked about can come in
another Land (Amendment) Bill, and then it can be contained in the Land Act. But really for
one clause to hold all the 90 clauses –(Interruption)
MRS BYAMUKAMA: Madam Speaker, I don’t understand what the chairman of the
committee is saying, because he sounds a little bit biased. We do have the Land Act, and
therefore we are not operating in a vacuum. I don’t see why he is pushing for partial passing
of the Land (Amendment) Act when he knows that there is a committee of this House
working on this issue. We have the Land Act; we have no lacuna; we have no vacuum. I
thank you.
MR WACHA: Madam Speaker, I want to thank hon. Dora Byamukama for that statement.
The minister’s fear is that if this matter is not passed today, it might lapse. I have two points
of information.
One, there is no provision any more in our rules which states that any matter which is not
finished within a session shall automatically lapse. We removed that provision; therefore, it is
automatic, we save any matter which is not finished within a session.
Two, even if it were there; there still would not have been any automatic lapse because we are
not dealing with a new matter. We are dealing with amendments to already existing law. So,
those amendments will not affect the law as it stands now.
Madam Speaker, the matter we are dealing with is not a small matter. This is a matter which
occupied the mind of the House for a long time. That is why it necessitated the appointment
of a special committee to look into all the intricacies of the matter. I don’t see what would
make the minister visibly stand as if somebody is going to die. I really would have thought
that as a minister, he would control his outside appearance as much as possible and show that
all matters of state are handled above board. (Laughter)
3
I do not see any problem with having the committee handle this matter during recess, and
then we deal with it immediately we come back. People are talking about September; I do not
know why. My understanding is that we are coming much earlier than we would have
thought, and continue with the process of the House until about 15th when the budget speech
will be made.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable minister and the members, the matter that is under
consideration is a very, very contentious issue of public concern. And to say that we should
lift it out and it will come some other time; I think this is not fair to the population. Let me
assure the Executive that Parliament is mindful of the problems, because we also have people
in our constituencies, and we know about these matters. So, we shall do everything in our
power to ensure that this matter doesn’t take too long, and really we can save it automatically.
We can arrange in our programme to do it in June. We can arrange in our program to do it in
June because we shall have a session. So, Mr minister, just give it one more month; let the
committee complete its work so that everybody goes home satisfied. Thank you very much.
(Applause)
CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT ON THE NEW POLICY OF THE
DECENTRALISATION SELECTION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED STUDENTS TO
PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES
MR MUTULUUZA: Madam Speaker, most of us have no report from the Chairperson of
this Committee. Yesterday, they brought only few copies; this is a very important report, and
I think we need to have it.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, my understanding is that it was distributed yesterday and
the other day; but I think the majority do have this report.
MRS HYUHA: Madam Speaker, this report has been distributed since the other day, and
yesterday copies were available on the table.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
MRS HYUHA: Those who have copies can show whether they have them. If you were not
around in the House the other day you could not have got one.
MR ARUMADRI DRAZU: Madam Speaker, I have personally been looking for this report.
Those of you whom I contacted can bail me out; I had even wanted a copy to photocopy for
myself but it was very difficult to get one. This morning, I knocked at the door of Room 10
where these copies had been photocopied, and I was told the machine broke down. Now for
the chairperson to come and say these copies were given yesterday, or the other day is a lie. I
am asking the chairperson to withdraw her statement.
MR AACHILLA: Yesterday, I was here, they just brought only three copies; I didn’t get a
copy.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, honourable members, let us do this, I will direct the Clerk
to produce other copies. Please read the report.
CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF THE NEW POLICY OF DECENTRALISED
SELECTION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED STUDENTS TO PUBLIC
UNIVERSITIES
MRS DOROTHY HYUHA (Woman Representative Tororo): Madam Speaker, thank you
very much for your wise ruling. I officially laid this report on the Table. Certainly, it is not
4
the work of the chairperson to duplicate them. I did my administrative role of handing over
the report.
Madam Speaker, honourable members, yesterday, as I have stated, this report was laid on the
Table. Attached were the guidelines from the Ministry of Education and Sports dated May
23rd; guidelines from the Ministry of Education and Sports dated 1stApril; a case study by
Parliamentary Research from Makerere University and the communication from the minister
urging the Committee to work very fast on this important matter.
I therefore, wish to present the report of Sessional Committee on Social Services on the
Guidelines of Decentralized Selection Of Government Sponsored Students to Public
Universities.
Madam Speaker, the Committee of Social Services received guidelines from the Ministry of
Education and Sports about the proposed new policy of decentralized selection of
Government sponsored students to Public Universities, during the budget policy statements of
the Ministry of Education and Sports when the Committee was discussing.
As I indicated, yesterday, Madam Speaker, the Committee did not make specific
recommendations on the subject, but reported to this august House as follows- And I quote,
section 23.0, Higher Education- I want to report from the Hansard for purposes of proper
record:
“Ministry of Education and Sports has developed guidelines on the policy of quota system of
admission into public universities. This policy is expected to come in effect in the financial
year 2003/ 2004. However, the Committee is yet to meet with the Minister of Education and
Sports and other stakeholders to discuss this new policy. A report will be submitted when
ready.” (Hansard, First Session- Second Meeting, Volume III, Sessional Committee Reports
on the Year 2002/2003 Budgetary Proposals, Page 96).
It is therefore my pleasure to report to this august House that the Committee is now ready as
per the report, which we submitted at that time.
Madam Speaker, going back to the report, paragraph 2, according to our Rules of Procedure,
Rule 154 (a) the Committee met with officials of Ministry of Education and Sports and
critically discussed the guidelines of decentralized selection of the Government sponsored
students to public universities.
Madam Speaker, as a matter of emphasis, I want to emphasize here to this august House,
before I go to the background, that the report is basically on the criteria of sponsorship of
students who qualify to join public universities not on the criteria of admission. Those two
should be clearly separated right from the word “go”.
The report is emphasizing the criteria of Government sponsorship of students who qualify to
join the universities. I also wish to emphasize here, honourable members, before I read the
background. The concern of the Committee was inequitable distribution of financial
resources to students who are admitted for higher education. Some areas are benefiting more
because of favourable conditions. The Committee has also analysed the historical factors, as
you will see that they are created by imbalance.
The committee is further concerned about the inequitable distribution of human resource
development in this country.
5
So, I want to go back to the background, Madam Speaker, the universities and other Tertiary
Institutions Act 2001, Section 28(1) and 34(3), gives public universities the mandate to admit
students on merit to different courses and programmes.
The students admitted to public universities are sponsored by either Government or privately.
The method of selection of students sponsored by Government has attracted considerable
controversy from the public. The selection of students sponsored by Government has been on
merit using nationally computed cut off points.
On page two, honourable members, it is observed that those who benefit from sponsorship are
children of the rich who can afford high fees to study in so-called good schools with better
facilities, and therefore, likely to pass better the advanced level courses to enter university.
On the other hand, the children of the poor who cannot afford these high fees are the majority
in the rural areas; and therefore, few students from the rural areas, or disadvantaged schools
join public universities on Government sponsorship.
It is further observed that most candidates who benefit from Government sponsorship come
from few districts as reflected in the case study of Makerere University - see the attached
statistical report.
Madam Speaker, I know those who got the report studied it. But as a matter of emphasis, I
wanted to turn to the annex attached to the report, page 2 of the statistics. As a matter of
emphasis, look at the column of Kampala District, year 1997/1998, the students who were
admitted on Government sponsored - 259, the following year 154, in the year 1999/2000
those admitted on Government sponsorship were 310. When you look at the section of
Nakasongola; you find that the same year 1997/1998 Nakasongola had zero admitted on
Government sponsorship, 5 admitted 1998/99 and 6 admitted 1999/2000.
Madam Speaker, look at case studies like Bushenyi, 1997/1998 had 86 admitted on
Government sponsorship, the following year 47 admitted and the third year 74 admitted.
When you look at districts like Bundibugyo, first year 1997/1998 only 1 student, the
following year 4, the third year only 1.
Madam Speaker, this study still looked at distribution of Government sponsorship versus the
population distribution. If you had time to analyse it on page 3 of this case study, you would
note that the statistics given on page 3, reflecting the population census of 2002 versus
Government sponsored students, you could see some cases.
Some of these districts even if we were to go by quota distribution on fair resources
distribution, you find some districts had an opportunity of students admitted over and above
while others are under. If I can pick a case study of Moroto by population, on page 3 and 4,
you would find that Moroto has a population census of average 171 people. But that year,
they had no student sponsored by Government; yet, if we were to go to by quota –
(Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Honourable members these statistics are very
important. Please listen.
MRS HYUHA Can we have protection from hon. Otafire?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, you are carrying out a small caucus on
that side. Yes, chairperson.
6
MRS HYUHA: I am just giving a few examples why we attached this study. Madam
Speaker, by the case study of Moroto, if the distribution of Government sponsorship at
Makerere as a case study was to be based on quota based report, then Moroto would have at
least 20 students admitted on quota.
Madam Speaker, if I can give a second case, Kamwenge for example, with a population –
(Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, can you please listen to the report?
Honourable members who are disturbing the House, I will name you and you will go into the
Hansard.
MRS HYUHA: Madam Speaker, I was just giving a few examples to justify why the
committee annexed this study for fair debate. I had given an example of Moroto, and I was
moving to the example of Kamwenge. Kamwenge with a population of 295,000 people
average had only 4 students admitted on Government sponsorship; yet if were to go by quota,
it would have had 34 students admitted.
On the other hand, if I can use Kampala as an example, which has a population of 1.2 million
people; it had 289 students admitted on Government sponsored; if we were to go by quota, it
would have had 140. Which means if this analysis is done that Government has money for
4,000 students, and we are a population of 24 million; a ratio of student admitted on
Government sponsorship to people in that district would have been 1 to 6,000.
The last example I could give is Bushenyi. Bushenyi has a population of about 723,000
people, but 137 students were admitted on Government sponsorship. If we were to go by the
quota system, based on population, we would have had 84 admitted on Government
sponsorship. Madam Speaker, those were just a few examples from a case study of Makerere
University, which we attached to the report.
We can go back to page 2 of the report, paragraph 4. It is against this background that
Government has decided to decentralise the selection of candidates to public universities for
Government sponsorship.
The Committee analysed the long-term factors that have created imbalances in secondary
school education, which is the basic requirement for the university entry, and it made
appropriate recommendations.
Observations and Recommendations on long-term factors that have created imbalances in
Secondary School education :
Madam Speaker, the Committee noted with concern that the differences in performance of
candidates in advanced level courses, which is the basic requirement for entry to the
university, has a bearing on long term imbalanced factors in secondary school education in
Uganda. These include, among others:
Foundation bodies of schools:
Historically, most of the old schools, which are seen today to be performing relatively well,
were constructed by religious foundation bodies. These bodies established strong foundations
for such schools, and most essential infrastructure like dormitories, classrooms, libraries and
laboratories were constructed and equipped.
The foundation bodies of schools have further established strong Parent Teachers
Associations (PTA), which charge extra fees over and above the statutory fees uniformly paid
7
by Government. These extra fees have tended to be so high and unaffordable by the poor
students. The extra charges (PTA fees) have attracted better experienced teachers and service
delivery in such schools, which has therefore resulted in better academic performance.
Madam Speaker, the Committee, therefore, recommended rationalisation of fees structures in
secondary schools to minimise these imbalances.
Honourable members, one school can charge PTA fees of 300,000/= while another charges
20,000/=. Therefore, when it comes to extra emoluments or top-up for teachers, you will find
that the school which charges 20,000/= will not afford to give a teacher above 10,000/=. The
other school may afford to pay the teacher, on top of his salary, 150,000/=. Therefore, that
teacher is likely to perform far much better than the teacher in the other whose welfare is not
catered for.
Madam Speaker, the statutory fees of 65/= per student per working day is so low compared to
the cost of living. Honourable members, Government only pays 65/= per working day
towards tuition for students in secondary schools. During holidays, they are not paid for
tuition. So, Government should increase capitation grants to schools and gradually eliminate
PTA fees in secondary schools.
Teachers should be paid adequate salaries over and above a living wage rather than relying on
PTA top-up allowances.
Infrastructure and Facilities:
As mentioned above, some schools have all the essentials and well-equipped infrastructure
and facilities in form of classrooms, libraries, laboratories, dormitories and transport for field
studies. These create a better learning and teaching environment for the candidates.
Meanwhile, some candidates in rural schools still study in temporary shades, and even at
times under trees, and they are exposed to some facilities only during examination time. So,
this is a big problem, honourable members.
The Committee was informed that the Ministry of Education and Sports is gradually
addressing the factor of libraries and laboratories through special programmes like the
African Development Bank (ADB) loan.
The equalisation policy should be established in secondary school education so that small
growing schools can receive special capital development grants.
Teaching Staff :
This is yet another factor which has created these imbalances we are talking about, which in
the long run affect the results. The long-time experienced teachers who are as well the chief
examiners, assistant chief examiners and team leaders of UNEB have remained working in
certain schools for a long time without transfers. While some rural schools remain understaffed, without any examiner and others have unqualified staff.
It has also been discovered that chief examiners, assistant chief examiners and team leaders of
UNEB tend to mark particular schools, and yet their assessment is not subjected to
moderation by anybody else.
Honourable members, a chief examiner’s mark is final, and every paper has one chief
examiner. If he picks packets for a particular school and he decides that the mark will be 75
and above, all those students will score a distinction. It is not subject to re-assessment. This
chief examiner can be marking as well as moderating packets of other examiners under him or
8
her. They can alter the mark of any examiner who is under their team, but whatever mark they
have decided for the packet they are marking will not be subject to any scrutiny.
The policy of putting a ban on the recruitment of teachers in secondary schools has worsened
the situation. The Committee supported the idea by the Ministry of Education and Sports on
the on-going staff transfers all over the country so that such imbalances in staffing are
addressed.
Madam Speaker, the Committee recommended that Government totally lift the ban on
recruitment of staff in secondary schools so that schools that are under-staffed can receive the
required number of teachers.
Chief examiners, assistant chief examiners and team leaders of UNEB should not mark
examinations. They should remain moderators and be paid adequately for the exercise. This
will give them adequate time to moderate and assess the work of other examiners.
The Criteria of Admission of Candidates to Secondary Schools:
Historically, secondary schools with renown facilities and staff have tended to set high and
competitive standards for the minimum entry requirement. This has put them at an advantage,
as they admit the best performers in the country. However, this will be solved by balancing
facilities and rationalising staffing in schools.
Geographical/Environmental factors:
The geographically hard-to-reach areas like arid areas, islands, high mountainous areas, as
well as insecure areas have not easily attracted qualified teaching staff and good students
from other parts of the country, hence poor performance.
On the other hand, some schools are centrally placed in areas with better income bases. This,
with better performance, attracts high fees charges by schools, which the poor parents cannot
afford.
Government has set up hard-to-reach allowances for teachers for such geographical areas, but
implementation has been slow as noted by the Committee. This is only for primary teachers
not secondary teachers.
The Committee strongly recommends that as Government addresses the short-term stopgap
measures, it should seriously focus on long-term factors in order to balance the distribution of
human resource development in this country.
Observations and Recommendations on the guidelines on decentralization of selection of
Government sponsored students by Ministry of Education and Sports:
This is in reference to the document attached to the report, the guidelines from the Ministry of
Education. It is document A, which is dated 23rd May. The heading is, “Ministry of Education
and Sports. P.O Box 7063 Kampala. Higher Education Department Draft Guidelines for the
Selection of Candidates by Districts for Government Sponsorship to Public Universities.”
On page 6, we just pointed out a few of the guidelines, where we had strong input. These
include:
District Selection Panel:
9
The guidelines from Ministry of Education and Sports suggested that the following people
would constitute the district selection panel:
(i) Chief Administrative Officers who shall be chairpersons of the district selection panels.
(ii) District Education Officers who shall be secretaries to district selection panels.
(iii) Magistrates.
(iv) A representative of NGOs whose activities are in education.
(v) Two people at LC III level, who shall be selected by representatives of district selection
panels.
(vi) A representative of religious organizations.
The Committee rejected the idea of district selection panels as proposed in the guidelines.
The district selection panels may not be transparent given the experiences of corruption in
some programmes implemented by the district, and this may water down the quality of
education in universities.
The Committee also rejected the following guidelines:
(i) The candidate should be from a poor socio-economic background. It is difficult to define
the real poor in Uganda. It will encourage corruption.
(ii) A candidate should fulfil human resource needs of the country as indicated by the
Planning Department of Ministry of Finance, Planning Economic Development. The list of
courses provided by the Ministry of Education and Sports was not exhaustive.
However, the Committee observed that university products are utilized locally and globally.
The Committee recommended an expansion of the list.
The Number of Candidates per District:
The guidelines from the Ministry of Education and Sports suggested the following:
(i) Seventy percent (a total of 2,800 students) of Government sponsorship should be shared
equally among the districts. Each district should be allotted 50 places. This will be under the
Universities and other Tertiary Institutions Act, 2001.
The districts that will not utilize the 50 places will surrender the balance to the joint
admissions board of public universities. This was supported by the Committee. What we
supported was the surrender of the balance and not the number.
(ii) Thirty percent (1200) of Government places plus those which will not have been taken up
by districts will be utilized as follows:



Competition on merit using the current system based on nationally computed cutoff points
sports
the disabled.
Candidates from 56 districts will compete for the vacancies available in each programme.
10
Recommendations of the Committee on the Selection of Candidates for Government
Sponsorship:
Above I gave you the guidelines as provided, now the Committee’s position is as follows:
(i) The selection of Government-sponsored students to public universities should be done
centrally by the joint sponsorship board, and not by the district selection panels as proposed
by the Ministry of Education and Sports.
(ii) A candidate should be from a particular district and a Ugandan. The selection should be
based on district of origin as endorsed by local leaders (LC I and LC II) on forms filled by
candidates while applying for universities. The Committee supported the already existing
practice of endorsement of forms by local leaders.
(iii) A candidate should be eligible for university admission regardless of the district.
(iv) The minimum requirement by public universities is two principal passes at Advanced
Level, which should be adhered to.
(v) Public universities will produce a list of admissible candidates for districts and submit
such lists to the joint sponsorship board. The list produced will show the name of the
candidate, school, district, courses applied for, points obtained for each course and available
places for each course.
(vi) The joint sponsorship board may have a representation of a specific number of members
from public universities’ admissions committees, Ministry of Education and Sports and
Ministry of Local Government.
(vii) The Ministry of Education and Sports will then send a copy of the list of admitted
students for Government sponsorship to districts for notice.
Recommendations on the Number of Candidates per District:
I wish to emphasize here that we came to this position after the discussion with the Ministry
of Education and Sports, which is reflected in guidelines No. 2, dated 1st April 2003.
Madam Speaker, the Committee analysed the guidelines on the number of candidates per
district and made the following recommendations:
(i) Sponsorship on merit using the current system based on nationally computed cut-off points
be allotted 50 percent, in order to maintain competition and excellence among students.
(ii) Sponsorship based on geographical distribution of districts be allotted 45 per cent. This
would come to 1,800 candidates.
(iii) Sponsorship based on others, including sports, the disabled, biological children of staff be
allotted five per cent. These will be 200 candidates.
Honourable members, according to the plans of the ministry, which we got from the
guidelines and from our interaction with them, Government intents to implement this policy
in the financial year 2003/2004.
Other Recommendations:
11

Government should consider applying this system of sponsorship to all other public
tertiary institutions not only to public universities.

Government should begin the implementation of the Higher Education Loans Board
as soon as possible to assist the needy but bright students who may not succeed on
Government sponsorship.

Lastly, Madam Speaker, Parliament should receive annual reports about this policy
subject for review.
Honourable members, I beg to report. (Applause)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
THE MINISTER OF EDUCATION AND SPORTS (Dr Khiddu Makubuya): Thank you,
Madam Speaker. I would like to thank the honourable chairperson for her report. Allow me,
Madam Speaker, to say that the Ministry of Education and Sports is aware of the great public
interest which -(Interruption)
DR CHEBROT: Madam Speaker, is it in order for the Minister in charge of Sports to dress
as if he is in a sports house, and to come to this honourable House when there is an important
discussion going on?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable member, I think he is properly dressed. (Laughter)
DR MAKUBUYA: Thank you once again, Madam Speaker. I was saying that the Ministry of
Education and Sports is aware of the great public interest and expectation for a review of the
policy of selection of Government-sponsored students for admission to public universities.
May I take this opportunity to inform the House that the ministry has been engaged in
extensive consultations with various stakeholders on this matter. These stakeholders include:


District leaders, local educationists and education officers who were consulted at
regional meetings. They gave their views on this matter.
The second category was, the vice chancellors of public and private universities who
met under the vice chancellors’ forum and discussed this matter.
We have also been to the Sessional Committee on Social Services, and this Committee has
discussed the proposed change of policy several times. To-date, we have only been to the
Committee on Social Services as part of the process of the broad consultations.
This House should appreciate that these consultations will take some time. The proposed
change of policy is a major and drastic departure from a long-standing tradition. It was
therefore necessary that these consultations are undertaken and a national consensus is
attained.
Madam Speaker, allow me to refer to page 2 of the Committee’s report, paragraph four. It
says, “It is against this background that Government has decided to decentralise the selection
of candidates to public universities for Government sponsorship”.
Honourable members, I would like to inform this House that the Government has not yet
decided to decentralise the selection of candidates to public universities for Government
sponsorship. This is not the Government position.
12
The Cabinet still has to pronounce itself on the philosophy of the proposed policy. In my
position, I cannot anticipate the decision of Cabinet on this matter. Even if Cabinet was to
accept a change in policy, we would need time to work out the logistics and mechanisms of
implementation - (Interjection)- I am about to finish.
I still have to go to Cabinet. I have not yet been there. The Committee has done its own
analysis and Government will have to do its own analysis. It would not be possible, therefore,
to embark on implementing any change in policy this year. I undertake to take the matter to
Cabinet as soon as possible. Thank you, Madam Speaker and honourable members.
MR AWORI: I was just wondering why the minister was saying that Government cannot
make up its mind, and yet he knew very well that this matter was coming up in Parliament
today. Is it another tactic of putting off the matter?
Secondly, we do understand that the same minister requested the Committee to come up with
this recommendation immediately, because the Government wants to implement the policy,
which is not acceptable. (Applause)
MR ERESU: Madam Speaker, I would like to give some information.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Information on what? I think let us just debate, because you are
not informing anybody. There is nobody on the Floor now.
MR ERESU: Madam Speaker, to the Committee’s report is attached a copy of the Minister’s
letter dated 17 February 2003. I want to read it verbatim.
“DECENTRALISED SELECTION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED STUDENTS TO
PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES
My Permanent Secretary wrote to you under his letter reference HE/1 dated 30 November
2003 on the above subject. I enclose a copy for your reference.
You do not seem have responded to that request to date. I am therefore, writing to remind you
to assign a date when the ministry can discuss the guidelines with your Committee or for your
indication of ‘No Objection’ that we proceed to implement as is.
After all, the subject will come up for review at least once a year.
It is important that progress is urgently made on this matter. Government needs to issue
guidelines on decentralised selection. Government will have to sensitise a wide range of
institutions and practically all stakeholders in good time to begin implementing the new
arrangement in the academic year 2003/2004 (Applause).
It is, therefore, my sincere hope that the Sessional Committee on Social Services will indicate
its input in the very near future. In the spirit of a democratic consultation, I urge you to
respond urgently. The ministry was formally asked to stay action until your input. So, we have
not moved. The status quo may continue only at the risk of not embarking on the arrangement
this academic year 2003/2004.
This will be difficult to defend given the public outcry against the soon-to-be phased out
system of centralised selection of Government sponsored students at public universities.
Your committee has normally and generally been supportive.
expectation even on this occasion.
This is my hope and
13
Please, assign a date or give your indication of ‘No Objection so that we may implement as
is.”
Signed: Hon. (Dr) E. Khiddu-Makubuya, Member of Parliament, Minister of Education and
Sports.
DR MAKUBUYA: It is true that that letter was issued in February. Following what hon.
Eresu has said, allow me to read another letter also verbatim to the hon. Dorothy Hyuha,
Chairperson Sessional Committee on Social Services. The subject is –(Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. Members, he is the one who has got the letter. Why
don’t you let him read it?
DR MAKUBUYA: The subject is “Decentralised Admission of Government Sponsored
Students to Public Universities” also known as the Quota System.
“Genesis”: Madam speaker –(Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, let him read the letter.
DR MAKUBUYA: “Genesis: I thank you for my copy of your letter of 25 April this year.”
Paragraph 1 –(Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Minister, maybe, you could indicate the date you wrote
the letter.
DR MAKUBUYA: 25 April 2003. “I thank you for my copy of your letter of 11 April 2003
which indicates the short timetable of the work of the Committee on Social Services to 15 May
2003. Two entries in the timetable have caught my attention. On Tuesday, 2 April 2003, the
Committee was scheduled to discusst he above matter. On Tuesday, 6 May 2003, the
committee is to report to Parliament on the above matter. These two entries and their subject
matter have caused considerable unease in Government, which it is my duty to bring to your
attention. This letter arises partly because of the said considerable unease in Government, but
more importantly, because I personally recognise the invaluable work done, and contribution
made by the Committee you chair in guiding and superintending work of my ministry. I would
be failing in my duty if I did not point out to you difficulties which are likely to arise from the
said two entries and their subject matter i.e. the Quota System.
Government policy normally evolves by proposals from the line ministry, which are sent to
Cabinet. After Cabinet approval, legislation or other administrative arrangements are made
for implementation. Parliament makes its input through the legislative process, the Budget
approval process, informal and formal oral questions, motions, et cetera. This ministry has
made wide consultations on the above matter. This ministry has not formally accepted the
quota system as policy. The Cabinet has not formally accepted the quota system as
Government policy. Indeed, the draft guidelines, which have been discussed in your
committee, carry the following final paragraph. We now solicit for your approval of these
guidelines in order to help us implement this policy this academic year 2003/2004. The
Commissioner, Higher Education, has explained that this paragraph was addressed to the top
management meeting of the ministry. The top management meeting has not yet auctioned the
guidelines. It is true that pages 55 and 56 of the Yoweri Kaguta Museveni 2001 Election
Manifesto carry a commitment on recasting Government sponsorship. I am afraid that the
quota system set out in the draft guidelines is neither the position of this ministry nor the
Government of Uganda.
It is not my position that the committee should not discuss the quota system. The committee is
free to discuss a matter it deems material and relevant at anytime. It is my position, however,
14
that the draft guidelines on the quota system are at this point in time not Government policy.
They should, therefore, not be discussed as if they were the position or policy of the
Government of Uganda.
The said timetable indicates that on this day the committee will report to Parliament in
plenary on the new policy on decentralisation of selection of public universities. I have stated
above that there is no such new policy in Government at this point in time. If the committee's
report to the Plenary pronounce the quota system as Government policy, it will become my
unfortunate duty to stand up and state exactly what I am stating here. That is, that at this
point in time, the quota system is not Government policy.
I sincerely pray that God almighty saves us, the committee, and myself from this tragedy on
the Floor of Parliament.”
The foregoing are my reasons for asking the committee not to proceed with the item on
Tuesday, 6th May 2003.
MR AWORI: Madam Speaker, I have heard my hon. Colleague on the Front Bench making
statements pertaining to a manifesto of my former rival in the last presidential elections. Is he
in order to disown the manifesto of incumbent statements that made the President defeat me?
(Laughter)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I think the Executive cannot disown the
manifesto of the Government.
DR MAKUBUYA: Five: “I have written this letter in good faith and in the spirit of seeking
to avoid an embarrassing, unnecessary and clearly avoidable confrontation on the Floor of
Parliament. Where a mistake may have been made, please pardon, but please avoid the tragic
confrontation in Parliament. For God and my Country.” Signed.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I am not disowning a provision in the manifesto. What I am
saying is that consultations are going on and these proposals are not yet Government policy. I
cannot stop Parliament from discussing the issue, I could not stop the committee from
discussing the issue, but Government has not accepted this as its policy. Thank you.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, as far as I am concerned, certain events
were set into motion. The committees begun working, our sittings are in public, the public is
aware that our committees have been discussing this matter. So I would like the executive to
look at this as part of the consultation process. Actually, whatever is debated here might
enrich your further consultations in the Cabinet.
DR MAKUBUYA: Madam Speaker, thank you very much, I accept that position.
MR WACHA: The position taken by the Minister on behalf of Government is very
disturbing. It is disturbing because if you open debate on this matter, this Parliament will be
behaving as if it is a workshop. We are not a workshop. We are supposed to consider serious
policy matters, which affect our people. (Applause). I want the chairperson of the committee
to explain to me the following: In her report she states the following on page 1, paragraph 1.
“The Committee received guidelines from the Ministry of Education and Sports about the
proposed new policy of decentralised selection of Government to sponsored students to public
universities.” That is paragraph 1.
15
Paragraph 2. “According to our Rules of Procedure, the committee met with officials of the
Ministry of Education and Sports and critically discussed these guidelines on decentralised
selection of Government sponsored students in public institutions.”
1. Who sent these guidelines to the committee?
2. Who are these officials of the ministry that you have met, and what transpired
in that meeting?
3. Was the Minister aware of these meetings with his officials from his ministry?
I thank you.
MR OMARA ATUBO: Madam Speaker, I want a very clear clarification from the
chairperson of the committee.
1. This letter of the Minister, which he read, is dated 25 April 2003. Did she receive a
copy of this letter, and if she did, before she came to this House to present her report,
what action did she take? Did she respond to it and so on?
2. Madam Speaker, the Minister writes a letter on the 17 February 2003, which is very
clear to me, in very clear English.
The killing paragraph is here.
“It is important that progress is urgently made on this matter. Government needs to issue
guidelines on decentralised selection. Government will have to sensitise a wide range of
institutions and practically all the stakeholders in good time to begin implementing the new
arrangement in academic year 2003/2004”, and it goes on.
The Ministry has formally asked to stay action until you are able. Now, Madam Speaker, I
want this House to note one thing. That in the letter of the 25th April 2003, the Minister makes
no reference whatsoever to his first letter of 17th February 2003; and he stands there and says
“I have written this letter in good faith”! What sort of Government is this? What sort of
Minister is this?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have already ruled that the committee
was acting in response to a request from the ministry. So, there is no question that they were
acting and they have been prompted by events that set into motion and they started working.
MRS HYUHA: Madam Speaker, hon. Members, hon. Omara Atubo has asked me whether I
received this letter and what action was taken. Also hon. Ben Wacha asked whether it is true
that we received the guidelines and who sent the guidelines, and I believe that as I answer the
second question, because I want to read the response and the position of the Committee,
which will also answer hon. Ben Wacha's concern.
Madam Speaker, from 25th April up to about 2nd May, the Committee on Social Services was
visiting health facilities and programmes. When we came back, I found the communication by
the Minister, as he has stated it, in my pigeonhole. After reading the letter, we had a meeting
as a committee and analysed it and took a decision that I should communicate back to the
Minister as follows:
Letter dated 13th May 2003 to the Minister of Education and Sports.
“Ministry of Education and Sports Kampala.
Ref: Decentralised Selection - Government Sponsored Students to Public Universities.
16
As you may recall, the above-mentioned subject was first submitted to the Sessional
Committee on Social Services in May 2002 during their discussions on the Ministerial Budget
Policy. Unfortunately, the Committee was unable to make specific recommendations on the
subject at the time and it recommended to the House as follows:
2.30 – Higher Education.
The Ministry of Education and Sports has developed guidelines on the policy of quota system
of admission into public university. This policy is expected to come into effect in the Financial
Year 2003/04. However, the Committee is yet to meet with the Minister of Education and
Sports and other stakeholders to discuss this new policy. A report will be submitted when
ready. (Hansard, first Session Second Meeting Volume 3, Sessional Committee Reports on
Financial Year 2002/03 Budgetary Proposals page 96.)
In November 2002, the Permanent Secretary wrote to the chairperson requesting that a
meeting be organised to discuss the guidelines before implementation of 2003/04 Academic
Year. That letter was followed up by another letter dated 17 February 2003 in which you
reminded the Committee to assign a date when the ministry could discuss the guidelines with
the Committee or indicate no objection.
At the beginning of April 2003, the Ministry submitted Revised Draft Guidelines for selection
of candidates and a date was fixed to discuss the proposals. The Committee met with officials
of the Ministry of Education and Sports led by hon. Betty Akech Akulo, Minister of State for
Higher Education on 20th March 2003 and critically discussed the guidelines on
decentralised selection for Government Sponsored Students to Public Universities. Because
the arrangement of selection was received with mixed feelings by the Committee, the
Committee agreed that the matter being of public concern, should be brought to the House
rather than the Committee deciding for the whole House.
While attending the Business Committee meeting chaired by the Speaker of Parliament on 8th
April 2003, I was requested to brief the Members on the status quo of Government business
before the Sessional Committee of Social Services. Indeed, I reported about the proposed new
position of decentralised selection of Government sponsored students to public universities
and about other business.
Consequently, the Business Committee planned for this business to be debated before
Parliament is prorogued on 15th May 2003. Following this, a timetable schedule was drawn
by the Committee of Social Services to complete all the work before Parliament is prorogued
and copied to relevant Ministries. It is therefore, very surprising after all these proceedings to
receive a letter from you stating that the guidelines are not yet a policy, when it is the
Ministry which has been urging the Committee to finalise the discussion. It should be noted
that under the Rules of Procedure, the Committee has powers to examine and comment on
policy matters affecting the Ministries covered by it and to initiate or evaluate action
programmes on those Ministries and sectors and make up appropriate recommendations on
them.
Once the Ministry submits a policy issue or an action plan to the Committee and the
Committee discusses it with the Ministry under the guidance of a Minister, the Committee and
indeed Parliament assumes that it is an agreed policy or plan or action plan. The Committee
is not expected to investigate whether Cabinet has approved it or not. As you may also
appreciate, it would be a very difficult task to carry on especially if the relevant ministry
shows that it is ready to implement with the set programme. It should be remembered that the
guidelines were first submitted during the discussion of Policy Statement and Action Plan for
the Ministry for the Financial Year 2002/03 and the Committee was reminded of it early this
year with prompted Committee’s Action. It is therefore difficult for the Committee to
abandon work finished and submitted by the Speaker.”
17
Signed,
Hyuha Dorothy
Chairperson Committee on Social Services
c.c. Speaker
c.c. Deputy Speaker
c.c. Prime Minister
c.c. Minister of State for Parliamentary Affairs
c.c. State Minister Higher Education
c.c. State Minister Primary Education
c.c. State Minister Sports
c.c. Clerk to Parliament
c.c. Permanent Secretary
c.c. All Members of the Social Services Committee.
So, to wind up hon. Ben Wacha’s concern, we received the guidelines, which I laid on the
Table along with the Committee’s report. These guidelines came along with the Budget
Policy Statement in the last Financial Year. These guidelines are headed “Ministry of
Education and Sports - Higher Education Department.” These guidelines, after we had met
the hon. Minister and when the hon. Minister hon. Betty Akech came, indeed –(Interruption)
Am I protected?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, hon. Members, please, that is an important business.
MRS HYUHA: She clearly stated she was representing the Minister who was unable to turn
up. She was accompanied by Ambassador Acato who is the Commissioner for Higher
Education and who also represented the Permanent Secretary. She was accompanied by the
Acting Commissioner for Business, Vocational or Technical Education and Training, Eng.
Okinyal, and other officials; Principal Education Officers in Higher Education. We met. It is
after we debated and analysed critically that they sent these revised guidelines in harmony of
the Committee’s position so that we implement. We even encouraged them that please, hurry,
consult before Parliament is prorogued so that the Committee can report to the august House.
We have played our part hon. Members.
MR EKANYA: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. As it is provided for in our rules, I
would like to remind Members and the Minister that whatever action this Parliament is to take
–(Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Which rule is that?
MR EKANYA: Rule 154, which deals with the functions of the Sessional Committees. I
would like to read 154(e), which states one of the functions: “to monitor the performance of
Ministries and Departments.”
Madam Speaker and honourable members, that rule is backed by Article 79(1) which states
that: “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament shall have power to make
laws on any matter for the peace, order, development and good governance of Uganda.”
We do this by making recommendations, passing resolutions, and passing budgets. Therefore,
whatever we shall pass here is within the laws of this country and it is the responsibility of
Government to implement it, failure of which we shall invoke our powers as in Article 118.
We can fail to pass or reject the budget, and I want to encourage members that it is within our
rules to pass a resolution. If Government fails to respond, we shall invoke our powers. I thank
you.
18
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, let us stop the information and clarifications. Let us just
speak to the motion.
DR KASIRIVU ATWOOKI (Bugangaizi County, Kibaale): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I
want to thank the Chairperson of the Committee on Social Services and the Committee for a
good report. I imagine with the presentation of the chairperson and the clarifications which
have so far been given, there is not much to debate. The whole matter is straightforward.
I am really baffled at the way the Minister of Education, hon. Khiddu Makubuya, has behaved
on the Floor of Parliament. I could lose respect for him. He has actually denied the letter he
wrote and signed himself. That is terrible! Under normal circumstances, Madam Speaker, he
should have resigned.
Why is there this proposal for decentralised selection? All members will agree that during the
1970s and below, most secondary and primary schools upcountry were performing very well.
There was no need for an alternative to seeing how children could be assisted to access their
right, and it is their constitutional right, to get educated. But over years, schools have been left
to go to the dogs. The Ministry of Education has been there, and it is their duty to make sure
that these schools are actually in a better position.
Madam Speaker, -(Interruptions)
MR ERESU: Madam Speaker, to reinforce that point, I would like to give the following
information. In 1968 I was admitted to St. Mary’s College, Kisubi as a student in senior one.
This is a very highly recommended school with high standards and yet I came from a rural
primary school in Kaberamaido and I was capable of competing effectively. This arose from
the fact that schools were better catered for then, to enable balance between students from
different places and schools to compete and enter good schools too - which is not the case
now.
DR KASIRIVU: I thank hon. Eresu for the information. I was going to present the same
scenario. Madam Speaker, I come from the “lost counties” and those of you who know the
history of those counties know that Government neglected putting up good schools in that
area. It was only the missionaries who did put up a secondary school, and at one time –
(Interruptions)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am going to name those disturbing the
proceedings of this House. This is a very important debate.
DR KASIRIVU: Madam Speaker, at one time, St. Edward Senior Secondary School,
Bukuumi, was the only school in the whole of Bunyoro region and it was put up by the
missionaries. If you went to that school today, it is in a miserable state! It was a very powerful
school, and I want to tell you that in this Parliament, there are five Members of Parliament
who passed through that school. It is a rural school and I want to say on this Floor that I am so
annoyed about its state.
During the Sixth Parliament, I did invite hon. Khiddu Makubuya to visit that school. That was
the year 2000. Up to today he has never gone to that school. Just about a month ago I
reminded him, wrote him letters, and he told me he had no fuel. I offered to give him fuel but
he refused. Now, if a Minister of Education can refuse to go and see the schools, who else
should go? That is why we are annoyed. Our children are not getting opportunities to come to
these schools because the Ministry of Education has not done its part.
I want to thank hon. Bitamazire. I invited her to go and see my primary teachers and talk to
them so that she could boost their morale and she came and talked to them. I want to
19
commend her. I wish she were the Minister of Education herself! (Applause). I just wish she
were the Minister of Education herself, Madam Speaker -(Interruptions)
MRS BITAMAZIRE: Madam Speaker, is the Member of Parliament holding the Floor in
order to start comparing me with my senior minister? (Laughter). Furthermore, is he in order
to refer to powers only left to the President, of appointing ministers?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: About the first one, he was really appreciating the work done in
your sector. (Applause).
On the second one, he has no authority to assume the powers to appoint ministers. Please,
proceed.
DR KASIRIVU: Madam Speaker, thank you for your wise ruling. Through my prayers I
wish her well. I am only praying that this august House rationally looks at the proposals of the
Committee. We are Members of Parliament elected from various constituencies and we have
met here because we have gone through schools. Really, it is imperative upon us to ensure
that we create avenues and a good environment for other children to come up too.
Madam Speaker, from the report, there are districts that are well off for various reasons. The
economic base could be better and the parents thus able to sponsor their children in better
schools. Some of the regions or districts have got a good tax or revenue base and are able to
subsidize their teachers so that they do a better job. But there are other areas, which do not
have that capacity.
If you go to Makerere University for example, you will find many students from Kibaale who
are self-sponsored. More than three-quarters of the students at Makerere University from
Kibaale are trying, and many times as MPs we get telephone calls of people saying, “I am
about to sit for exams but I am short of about Shs 50,000. Please help so that I can sit for my
exams” And all this is because the child is self-sponsored.
A parent in one of my sub-counties has actually been selling pieces of his Kibanja in order to
raise money to push his son ahead. Madam Speaker, if the Ministry of Education thinks they
are not yet ready, can they give us another formula to make sure that our children who have
passed and have been admitted to Makerere are catered for? They pass but some of them do
not attain the grades qualifying them to be Government-sponsored.
What we are saying is not that they have failed to go to Makerere, no. They pass and get
admitted but they are not in the bracket of being Government-sponsored. That is the whole
thing. Could we now have some equitable distribution so that those ones who have been
admitted to Makerere we say for example that we take 50 students from Kibaale on
Government-sponsorship? That is all.
Other people have been saying that it is going to water down the quality. How? We are
talking of a student who has already been admitted to the university. The issue is that if a
person has been admitted, can we find a formula to see that the Government sponsors him and
that he gets some financial assistance to study? That is all we are saying. Those who are
saying that it will water down quality and so forth, it is not correct.
In any case, Madam Speaker, my experience is that the children who come from rural areas
with marginal results, when given a good environment they actually excel and beat these ones
from very good schools who have been spoon-fed. So, I want to commend the Committee and
I am praying that this august House endorses the report of the Committee and makes sure that
the Ministry of Education implements it. I thank you.
20
MS MARY AMAJO (Woman Representative, Kaberamaido): Thank you very much,
Madam Speaker. I would like to thank the Committee for this very good report. I would really
like to plead with the Minister that the process of whatever has to be done within the Ministry
should be rationalized and speeded up, because I think this is a very good policy.
When you look at the Uganda Human Development Report, every year you realize that there
are districts that are always at the bottom in terms of human development indices. This does
not mean that these districts have children of less brain capacity. This policy is very important
because most of the efforts of this Government depend on the right direction in development
of the human resource. Take for example the policy of decentralization. How do you expect
the capacity to carry on the decentralization programme to be developed if over the years a
number of districts in this country cannot get the education required for proper
implementation of the programme?
This report may be about university education, but reading through it and from what the
chairperson of the Committee has said, it is almost about the development of the human
resource in totality. So, in supporting this report and the stand of the Committee, I would like
to add that this is not enough. The policy on the admission to the university is not enough. I
urge Government to speed up the recommendation that there should be a model school in
every district. Without this kind of school, we may not generate the kind of students that are
expected in universities.
Madam Speaker, I would also like to ask a small question related to one of the appendices of
the report. I think it is the last column, which talks about the non-specified students taking up
2.62 percent of sponsorship in the universities. I would like to ask for a clarification. Who are
those non-specified students? I thank you, Madam Speaker.
MR ROGERS MATTE (Ntoroko County, Bundibugyo): Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker. I thank the Committee for the report they have produced on the quota system of
admission. In my view, this quota system is arising from inadequate planning by Government
in the past; from not recognizing the importance of proper analysis of the problems that the
poor districts face and contributing to poor education in those districts.
I come from a very poor district - that is Bundibugyo - though I managed to excel in my
education. That was not only because I studied from good schools in other districts, but I also
had my background in a rural school at primary level. When you compare students from the
poor schools in the rural areas and those in urban schools, the fact is that if you brought them
together under the same conditions, chances are that those from the rural districts will perform
better. I was able to out compete some of those from better districts during my time, yet I had
a bad background from the villages.
What I am saying is that Government should analyse more the causes why rural districts and
schools do not perform. Give us more facilities other than giving us places at tertiary
institutions. What we need is not the places in universities, what we need is how to study on
our own and compete favourably with others –(Interruption)(_Mr Eresu rose_).
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Information from the honourable member.
MR MATTE: Madam Speaker, I do not need the information. If you visit our poor districts,
you will notice the difference. You will find that there are no good teachers and we do not
have good facilities at these schools. If you provided these facilities, then teachers and
students would be able to perform. What you are providing now, the quota system, is going to
solve a short-term problem. It will not help us in the long run because it is actually treating
symptoms
21
Although it is necessary that we should accept the quota system now, Government should not
move away from its responsibility of creating –(Interjection)– I am finishing my contribution.
What I am saying is that the quota system will help us get more graduates in the shortest time
possible but in the future that will not be a sustainable way of getting better education in the
rural areas. Thank you.
MR NANDALA MAFABI (Budadiri West, Sironko): Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker. I want to thank the Committee for this good report. However, there are a few flaws
that I will get to later on.
To begin with, the chairperson said that only one person was admitted to Makerere University
from Bundibugyo, and there is one who was admitted on Government-sponsorship. We
should also have analysed how many passed in the area. He could be the only person who
qualified. I would have been happier if the Committee came up with a unit price per student
in the university. This would have helped us determine what will be the cost per student in the
universities. Short of that, we could be having a lot of wastage in terms of money that goes to
the universities in form of Government and private payments.
I agree that education is for everybody. Everybody who qualifies to go to Makerere should
qualify for Government sponsorship, if the resources were available. Given that the resources
are not available, who are those who qualify? These are the children of the well-to-do
persons, the MPs, the Ministers, the rich. The reason is these are the people who go from
good nursery up to secondary schools, and they are the ones who will end up in Makerere.
Having got their triple “A” grades, they get Government sponsorship. Whereas the peasant
who could not afford these good facilities takes his child to a very bad school and when it
comes to Makerere he sells himself, his wife, and everything to educate the child on private
sponsorship. Who is feeling the pain? It is the peasant.
Even this quota system we are talking about now, we are saying it should go back to the
district and the best person in the district is the one to qualify for it. It is again Nandala’s son
who will qualify. That is because he will go to a good school and so he is the one who will get
the scholarship. You will have not solved any problem. (Applause).
With that in mind, we should also note that everybody pays tax. It should not be the rich to
benefit, and most of the rich do not pay tax. The Government sponsorship we are talking of to
Makerere - it goes to those who could afford, and now the Government is subsidising them
and paying for them. I agree the Bible says, “He who has, more will be given unto him,” but
in our lives I think it is wrong.
The Committee says Shs 65 should be allocated in secondary schools per student per working
day. It has not discriminated against any type of student. If that is the case, it should also be
applied to institutions. Even if you have been admitted to a poor school, you will also get the
Shs 65, even if you go to Kisubi you will get the Shs 65. Therefore, this sponsorship should
also be applied in the same manner.
What am I trying to say? For purposes of equity let us know how much money is taken to
institutions. This money should then be shared among all Ugandans who have qualified.
(Applause). That way the difference will be paid by every parent, whether rich or poor. What
will help here is that instead of the peasant paying the whole sum, part of it will come from
Government and he will pay the difference.
The Committee has talked about corruption. It also mentioned that if this goes to the district it
would breed corruption. In reality, if we go by what I am saying, corruption will not be there.
I do not want us to compromise standards because of districts not being able to produce the
best candidates from that area –(Interruption)
22
DR MALLINGA: It is very unreasonable for the honourable member to try and mislead the
House that this is going to lower the standards of education in the country. It was emphasised
that those who qualify to go to Makerere are the ones who are going to be sponsored by the
Government. It is not the people who do not qualify who are going to be admitted to
Makerere.
MR NANDALA: Thank you very much my colleague for the information you have given me
–(Interruption)
MRS BABA DIRI: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker and thank you honourable
member on the Floor. I would like to inform him that, the very people you say are not
qualified to go for Government sponsorship are the very ones who are accepted by the
university through private sponsorship, and they have gone to the same university.
(Applause).
MS ALISEMERA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to inform my honourable colleague
that Bundibugyo took one student on Government sponsorship. But Makerere University that
same year admitted 42 private sponsored students from that poor place, and they are
qualifying with very good degrees. So, we want them sponsored. (Laughter).
MR APUUN: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I thank the honourable member
for giving way. I would like to inform the member on the Floor that, if he looked very
critically at the schedule specifying distribution of Government-sponsored students at
Makerere University in 2002/2003, you find that Moroto District has zero. But at the moment,
we have ten students in Makerere University on private sponsorship.
It is very amazing that in all backward districts, nobody is accepted on Government
sponsorship. So, you can imagine the marginalisation in this country. It is really appalling!
MR NANDALA MAFABI: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I thank my
colleagues who have given information. Now, you have seen the argument you are bringing
up. They are trying to beef you up.
What do I mean? We are saying we are not going to compromise the quality, and the very
best in the district will be the ones to be sponsored in Makerere. Definitely, me who is from
Sironko, who has taken my kid to Buddo, will be the one who will get the sponsorship. So,
what have you done? Nothing. You are bringing more poverty and more hatred for me.
Because they will say, “that man who is already rich is now bringing his son to get money
from the district”.
Let me try to drive my point home. I want to give the example of Makerere. You are saying
Makerere is going to put up a pass mark. If Makerere carries out a selection, this means the
person selected qualifies to go to Makerere. The moment he qualifies for Makerere, it means
he is supposed to benefit from the sponsorship of Government. (Interjections) Yes! Is he not a
Ugandan? First of all, Makerere has admitted. It admitted you because you qualify.
(Interruption)
MR OGWEL LOOTE: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank you my colleague, Mafabi,
for giving way. I would like to inform you that for Moroto, as my colleague said, ten students
qualified on private sponsorship. This shows that these students were university material. So,
among them, one or two could have been taken on Government sponsorship.
Secondly, there is a boy who got five principal passes in sciences this academic year.
Tomorrow Makerere will not take that student with those five principal passes, moreover in
23
sciences.
person.
There is unfairness! And yet he comes from Moroto. His parent is an average
DR CHEBROT: Thank you, Madam Speaker and hon. Mafabi. I have a lot of respect for
hon. Mafabi, but today he seems to be a bit confused. (Laughter). I do not know why he
cannot see the facts.
If he looked at the statistical figures here, we are talking about two issues. There is the issue
of equity, and yet we are not compromising on the issue of quality and standard. Hon. Mafabi
is trying to confuse the two.
Hon. Mafabi, I want you to retain your respect in this House and understand that the issue is
flowing towards equity in this country. They have given you the history of what happened to
schools like Nabumali, which used to produce some of the best students. They are now
admitting none to the university, at times.
So, please, I beg you not even to stand up, but to stay where you are until we finish. (Laughter
and Applause).
MR NANDALA MAFABI: Thank you very much, Dr Chebrot, and the member from
Moroto. Yes, you are saying we are not compromising standards. We are taking those who
have passed to Makerere. That is good. Now I am saying, everybody who has gone to
Makerere qualifies for Government sponsorship, and if he does, we should share it. So, do not
miss the point. Let me give you a scenario. (Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Nandala, are you saying that at the moment whoever is
admitted receives sponsorship? Is that what you are saying?
MR NANDALA MAFABI: Madam Speaker, what I am trying to say is, when you go for
selection for S.6 students to go to Makerere, the university puts up a pass mark. They give a
cut-off point. When you give a cut-off point, whoever is above that cut-off has qualified to go
to the institution.
Now we are saying, if you have qualified, if resources were there, like they were in those
days, everybody would have got full Government sponsorship. But since we do not have
enough resources to cater for everybody, we want every person who qualifies to go to
Makerere to get a contribution from Government. (Applause). I want to put up the scenario –
(Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, let him speak. We shall give you
opportunity.
MR NANDALA MAFABI: Madam Speaker, those who are walking out have rich children
who are doing very well, and they want the peasants to remain poor.
Madam Speaker, I was trying to give a scenario. Let me give a scenario. (Interjections) Give
me chance. Madam Speaker, protect me from the president of – (Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Give your scenario and conclude.
MR NANDALA MAFABI: Madam Speaker, if you admitted 8,000 students and 4000 were
to pay university fees of 500,000/= each, all the students would benefit from the 500,000/=.
That means, each student will get 250,000/=. Now, every parent should contribute 250,000/=
instead of leaving the poor parent to pay the whole 500,000/=. (Applause).
24
MR AMURIAT: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank my honourable colleague for giving way. I
would like to inform him that there is a also a possibility that despite that equal contribution
across the board, there are parents out there from poverty stricken areas who will not afford
the top-up. What do you do with such students?
MR NANDALA MAFABI: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I thank my colleague.
Instead of selling ten cows to pay 500,000/=, you now sell five cows to pay 250,000/=. It is
very simple.
All we are saying is, what about those who cannot afford? Is it better to pay 250,000/= or
500,000/=? It is better to pay less money. It will now be affordable by many parents who
could not afford. It will now reduce the disparity between those who were trained in good
schools and those who come from poor schools.
Madam Speaker, if we implement what I am trying to bring up, it will have so many benefits
in the sense that there will be no corruption. The number of students -(Interruption)
MR BESISIRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I would like to thank my colleague for
giving way. The whole idea behind this thing is not for those people who are in universities, it
is for people who qualify but are not able. Those are the ones we are talking about. They
qualify, but they are not able.
You are talking about those who have been admitted, and some have even gone in on private
sponsorship. Those who can go on private sponsorship are also rich. We are talking about
those students who have made it to A’ level, have qualified but are not even able to go in for
private sponsorship. These are the ones we are trying to look at.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, everybody will be given a chance to
speak. Please conclude, hon. Nandala.
MR NANDALA MAFABI: Madam Speaker, I think we are getting more confused when the
members of the Committee tell us that it is those who cannot afford whom we are making the
resolution for. I thought we are making this for those who qualify. It is about how much
Government should pay for whoever has qualified. And we are saying, we want to equitably
share what the Government is contributing for whoever has qualified –(Interjection)- Even if
it is 1000 shillings, it is better than nothing.
Madam Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that members should take this issue with a
positive attitude. Short of that, you are going to remain with the same situation. If you take on
the quota system you are thinking about, you are going to remain with the same children from
rich families, who have gone to good schools.
The ten people that we are talking about in Karamoja, under this system all of them would
benefit and Karamoja will benefit. I want us not to move on a tribalistic basis. This is our
nation; it is a country for all of us. Stop tribalism and we shall move on. Thank you, Madam
Speaker.
MR MOSES KIZIGE (Bugabula North, Kamuli): I thank you, Madam Speaker,
for giving me this opportunity. In his opening remarks, the hon. Minister of
Education and Sports noted that this is a very sensitive matter, which requires lots and
lots of consultation.
25
Madam Speaker, it is my humble request to the minister that the issues raised here be taken
very seriously. In fact, in my constituency, the people expect this programme to be
implemented this financial year. The time is now. There is no time for waiting.
Madam Speaker, this matter would not have arisen if it were not for the good reasons that
have been advanced by the Committee in their report. They gave reasons for the imbalanced
manner in which our students are judged and ranked for admission at public universities.
The argument by hon. Nandala is very fine and would be the best, but it assumes that we have
a leveled ground. It assumes all students see laboratories right from their first year in senior
one, and are therefore able to compete equally. It assumes that somebody from an upcountry
school in Kamuli would compete equally with somebody from St Mary’s College Kisubi in
senior six in a science subject.
The fact is that, there are many students who do not see laboratories through school except a
few weeks to mock examinations, and then for their mock examinations and final
examinations. And then they struggle to come up with some grades.
Madam Speaker, I remember when I was in primary seven in 1976, a young man from my
constituency in a rural primary school won the national mathematics contest for the whole
country. Later on, that young man got the highest mark in PLE in 1976. He was from a typical
rural school. But this is not possible today. Today, the circumstances have changed.
Recently, Madam Speaker, a young man from a remote senior secondary school in Kamuli
District passed, but he could not qualify for Government sponsorship. He went ahead to be
admitted through private sponsorship for an evening programme. He struggled amidst all the
problems, and he tried to find employment somewhere.
Last October, he graduated with a first class in quantitative economics. If it was not for some
few people, including Members of Parliament, who helped that boy to go to school, that first
class in quantitative economics would never been realized.
So, because we have unlevelled ground, we cannot say that people should qualify and then the
best are admitted, and then whoever qualifies is given Government sponsorship.
Why don’t we learn from what happens in other countries? I want to give an example of the
United States of America. They do not have a centralized examination system, like we have
the primary leaving examinations where students qualify to go to high school based on their
primary leaving examination results. The best schools will go for the best candidates in the
primary schools, irrespective of where you are. Even from high school, -(Interruption)
MR AWORI: I would like to inform my honourable colleague that in the USA, they have
what they call SATs. You would not be admitted in any university worth its name unless they
have looked at your score for the SATs.
MR KIZIGE: I thank you for the information, but it came rather too early. I was coming to
that, and I will come to it.
Madam Speaker, the whole idea is, a boy who has been the best in Namuyiwa Primary
School, for instance, could have the same level of intellect as somebody who was in Kampala
Parents. That boy in Namuyiwa could have got a mere 17 aggregates at PLE, and yet the one
in Kampala Parents has automatically got 4 aggregates. But these people are probably equally
intelligent; the one in Namuyiwa could even be more intelligent.
26
It is true the United States of America has the Standard Admissions Tests (SAT) for
admissions to public universities. But today in the States, even if your standard admission test
score is high, if you are not in the first quarter of your class, you will find it difficult You
must be within the first quarter of your class in high school. If there are 100 students, then
you should have been among the first 25. You will find it difficult to get admitted into a
public school.
If it is for universities like Harvard, Notre Dame, Stanford, then you will even have to be
within the first three or four to be considered for admission at a university. (Interruption)
DR MALLINGA: The honourable member mentioned something about admissions in the
United States. I think we should stay away from that system. We cannot pull it here. What he
is mentioning is obviously not correct.
In the United States, there is no grading in the classrooms, say one to hundred. So, when you
say 25 percent in a classroom, it does not exist. You just get your grades, you apply, and it is
SAT and MCAT which decide whether you will be admitted to a certain university or not. Let
us deal with the local situation. What is the best way of dealing with our problems?
MR KIZIGE: I thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank hon. Mallinga for the information. But I
want to insist that at the University of Notre Dame where I went to, and at the University at
South Bend where I had the opportunity to lecture and be involved in the admissions, if you
are not ranked among the first four in your class, you will not be admitted. In fact, at Notre
Dame, if you are within the first four in your class, you will not even be subject to GMAT or
Graduate Record Examination.
Back to Uganda, I have given these examples just to show that you could be equally
intelligent, but because of the imbalanced facilities that are available to students –
(Interruption)
MRS BYAMUKAMA: Thank you, hon. Kizige, for giving way. Madam Speaker, I would
like the to draw the attention of this House to the point which the hon. Kizige is making,
which is very important.
When you look at the Constitution of Uganda, the spirit and the letter of the Constitution are
talking about this issue of equal opportunities. In fact, when you look specifically at the
national objectives, XVIII states:
“(ii) The State shall take appropriate measures to afford every citizen equal opportunity to
attain the highest educational standard possible.”
It says, “the highest educational standard possible”. Appropriate measures, in this case, are in
line with what we are talking about. This issue is also brought out in the law very clearly, in
Article 32 of the Constitution. Article 32 says:
“Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the State shall take affirmative action in
favour of groups marginalised on the basis of gender, age, disability or any other reason
created by history, tradition or custom, for the purpose of redressing imbalances which exists
against them.”
The honourable member mentioned one imbalance, which is geographical. Most of our
districts do not have electricity, they do not have laboratories, and therefore, this imbalance
must be addressed. I thank you.
27
MR KIZIGE: Madam Speaker, I thank hon. Byamukama for the information. This matter is
very serious, honourable members.
Only last week, I received a young lady from my constituency who had struggled from a rural
school to get 16 points. But when I consulted the Academic Registrar of Makerere, I was
assured that with the present system, chances are this girl would not get Government
sponsorship, but she could try private sponsorship.
I know for sure there is no hope that this girl can get private sponsorship. So, I advised this
girl to go and apply for admission to a grade III primary teachers college for a certificate
course. There is no hope that this girl will get admitted to the university, and there is no
guarantee that she will be admitted to a national teachers college for a diploma course.
So, the situation is that bad. And yet if this girl had been at Namagunga, or Nabbingo or
Nabisunsa she would definitely have scored 20 points and above. (Interruption)
MR KALULE SSENGO: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I thank my colleague
for giving way.
Hon. Kizige, you have left me wondering. Why did you advise this girl to go to a grade III
teachers college when there is grade v? May I assume that you are a very bad advisor? Thank
you.
MR WANDERA: Madam Speaker, my colleague, hon. Kizige, has made a very good point
but ended up turning everything upside down. We are making a very big fuss about university
education. We are making our young people feel that if they have not got into university, then
all is gone for them.
There are many alternatives to getting into public universities, even on Government
sponsorship. A young girl like he has talked about could still get into a national teachers
college or a UCC. If she gets a diploma with distinctions, she will get into Makerere on
Government sponsorship.
So, other than trying to encourage very poor people to sell their land to send their children on
private sponsorship, we should also tell them about the channel of going to Makerere through
NTCs and UCCs.
MR KIZIGE: Madam Speaker, to answer hon. Kalule Ssengo and hon. Wandera, out there,
there are more than 20,000 qualified teachers with diplomas in secondary education, but they
have not been employed. And yet whoever qualifies from a primary teachers’ college gets
into employment.
If my advice to this student was to go to an NTC, she would spend two years, come out and
stay unemployed, probably forever. And yet for a primary teachers college, she would come
out a grade III teacher and would get into employment, get a salary and then do career
development accordingly. I advised her as a prof.essional counsellor.
Madam Speaker, this issue should be resolved now. For us in Kamuli, we feel our quota
should be much bigger than it is now because our district is disadvantaged. Our schools are
very poor, and there are many other districts like us. For the likes of Kampala, and probably
Bushenyi and hon. Nandala’s Sironko, they might be okay. But for us in Kamuli, we support
this programme. I thank you, Madam Speaker.
MR OKUMU REAGAN (Aswa County, Gulu): Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for
giving me this opportunity. I have been following this matter very keenly with the
28
Committee. I also went through the Committee report and the earlier and later position of the
ministry.
Madam Speaker, sometimes I feel disappointed that Government is not serious on the
question of education, because we should be debating this matter here. I feel we should be
talking about other things here and not the quota system.
I am so disappointed that earlier on the ministry had given a guideline to the Committee, and
then the minister comes here and say, “no, the position has now changed”. I think this
reflects very shallow and irresponsibility on the part of the Ministry of Education.
Also for our Committee to go ahead and emphasize in depth the aspect of the quota system, I
feel it is still very shallow because that is not the gist of the matter. The gist of the matter if
we look at the quota system, we are merely looking at the symptom of the problem. The
symptom of the problem is admission; why has it gone all this far? Has the Committee taken
into account a research undertaken in the last five years? It is not enough for you to give us
admission for last year or this year; you should given us a researched position for the last 10
years because it is a very important matter. For the last 10 years what have we had –
(Interruption)
MR OCHIENG: Thank you very much, I just want to give information to the honourable
member. The very reason we are facing all this type of things today is the structure and the
arrangement of the Ministry of Education. This whole Ministry of Education is a home affair
from the top to the least. It is a line of one single clan; how do you implement a better system
in this form. That is why we are having all this kind of things today.
Madam Chairperson –(Interjection)- yes, let us go through the names; the leader of
Government Business is from Buganda; the Minister of Education is from Buganda; come to
UNEB –(Interruption)
MRS BIGIRWA: Madam Speaker, is it in order for hon. Ochieng to impute that the whole
hierarchy of the Ministry Education from the top to bottom is nothing but one clan without
substantiating?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think he was trying to explain what he means by a clan. Can
you tell us the clan you are referring to?
MR OCHIENG: Madam Speaker, what is causing all this is the uneasiness we are
undergoing now. Everybody in my constituency ever since the election of the President has
been hoping to see their children come to the university. Even now that we are almost ending
the term, we are being told that this could probably take us another 2 to3 years. What I was
basically trying to say is; the whole line of the Ministry of Education heads are basically one
single tribe, and this can entice people to simply take things for granted- (Interruption)
MR SEBAGGALA: Madam Speaker, I have stood on point of order. Is it in order for the
honourable Member of Parliament to confuse this House that the whole Ministry of Education
is composed of Baganda as a clan, yet we know that some ministers in the Ministry of
Education are not from Buganda. In Buganda we don’t have any name like hon. Betty Akech,
hon. Okello, Rubanga and others. So, is it in order for him to say the whole line up is full of
Baganda?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, he is out of order, there are ministers who are not Baganda
in that ministry.
29
MR OKUMU REAGAN: Madam Speaker, that is why sometime it is difficult to accept
information because we get derailed. My concern was about the way the Committee went
about its work and reached this final conclusion. Because if the whole Ministry of Education
had failed, then the Committee and the Research Department of Parliament should have
actually helped this House before rushing with this report here.
I believe Government has a policy of affirmative action, that the most disadvantaged districts
should be assisted. Because this system has been time tested over a period of time, and for
the people to have arrived at this arrangement of getting the best qualified; having agreed to
have a National Examination Board at the Ordinary level, Advanced level and a joint
admission board; it took them sometime and it has been tested over time. This time tested
event cannot really be overturned in such a manner and in such a speed without a backed up
research position which would give us greater guidance –(Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Okumu, I don’t know whether you were here when the
report was being presented. The Committee has said the Joint Admissions Board should
continue, and they have not said unqualified people should be admitted. They are saying
those who have been admitted should be sponsored; nobody is angered with the Joint
Admissions Board. I think he was not here during the presentation?
MR OKUMU REAGAN: Madam Speaker, I am not talking about qualification, I am talking
about the method of admission. I am not talking about qualification; I am saying that the
method of admission has been time tested.
MR ONZIMA: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank the hon. Okumu Reagan for giving
way. Hon. Okumu Reagan’s argument that the method of admission in Makerere has been
tested over a long period of time and it is the best; it is not true because the system has been
taken over by events.
I remember, in the 6th Parliament towards the end, I stood here on the floor of this Parliament
to complain of a student by the name, Steven Matwar, in Malacha constituency, who went to
a typical rural school even without an examination centre number. He went to one school
which had no number, and he went to sit in a neighbouring school which had an examination
centre number. The boy got 3 distinctions and 6 credits, and from there he proceeded to St
Charles Lwanga College in Koboko.
After his ‘A' Level, the boy got triple B and he was not admitted in Makerere. So, you can
see if a child gets Bs throughout and he is not admitted in Makerere, it means there must be
something wrong with that system which has been tested for some time.
I am trying to bring to your attention that Makerere has remained one Makerere, and yet so
many schools have come up, both private and public. Therefore, we have a very huge number
of students sitting for ‘A' level, and those who pass highly are so many. As I said the other
time, if you go for prof.essional discipline in science, chances are that you only have to end
with 4As and above for you to be considered for Government sponsorship. So, the old system
you are saying has been tested over time has been taken over by events.
The other boy I was talking about; I was able to talk to the Deputy Registrar for Admission
when some new courses were introduced in Makerere. The boy was taken, and he is now
doing a Bachelor of Science in Development Studies. And he is among the best five in that
class, and yet this is the same boy who was rejected by Makerere the previous year.
MR OKUMU REAGAN: Madam Speaker, you see when people go for exams everybody
prepares, and I know many Ugandans pass exams because the minimal condition for
admission in any university are two principle passes; so, if I get 2 Es, I qualify. But it is only
30
because Makerere, Mbarara and other universities need certain numbers. Uganda Martyrs
University will not just admit anybody; they will put a standard and say, “in view of the fact
that many of you have passed, this is where we are going to stop, because we cannot absorb
all of you”.
I think as Members of Parliament, we should be more responsible. We should not focus at
university education as the final end, or as the only road to the final end. If you get 20,000
students with BBB in ‘A' Level, all these will never go to universities. What advice would
we give them? They should take up professional courses at other institutions of learning and
eventually enrol for university education.
Many great professors like professor Okot p’Bitek never went to university directly, but he
was able to progress. So, I think we should not just get excited because we want our
constituents to hear that we are fighting for them to go to Makerere. We should rather (Interruption)
MRS KAFIIRE: Is the honourable member holding the floor in order to say that we just
want our constituents to hear that we want people to go to Makerere? Is he in order? I will
give an example of Pallisa District, presently we are suffering with the administration; if in 17
years Government had given Pallisa a district, the quota system would benefit us. Are you in
order to tell us that we are just politicking?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, we should note that it is true education
has become competitive, jobs have become competitive and the minimum to get a job is a
degree. So, the aspirations of many Ugandans are to achieve at least a degree. So, please,
bear in mind that the population has very high aspirations because that is the only way they
can get a job. So, you are out of order.
MR OKUMU REAGAN: Madam Speaker, all of us know that not all those who qualify for
university education can get there, and that is why we always sit down and say the few who
can afford will get the opportunity. There are many other people who go to other institutions
of learning with the idea in mind that eventually they will end up with university education.
We also have Members of Parliament who are studying because they have discovered
university education is good. But if they were to wait to go to Makerere, they wouldn’t have
come to Parliament.
So, Madam Speaker, we should focus more attention in looking at the symptoms because to
me that is the problem. I represent a constituency, which hosts one of the biggest institution
in this country. Not Gulu University; I am talking about Sir Samuel Baker secondary School,
which was one of the most powerful institution in this country. Many people used to travel
from Kabale and Arua to Sir Samuel Baker. But what has happened over time is that this
institution is ruined. How can we bring back this institution to power?
What is the problem with this Sir Samuel School in Aswa County, which is a very big
institution of learning? The problem is one, laboratories are not there; libraries are not there;
teachers are not there. Now how can we address this? I think the major issue on my side, as a
Member of Parliament, we would be focusing on these schools, because in the long run we
would be addressing this problem. If you look back in the earlier days, how were these
questions of regional representation in Makerere and other places handled? I think there is a
big problem.
I must congratulate my district for being resilient despite the problem of the 17 years of war
and the difficulties. The children there have struggled; and I am told in the national exams
they were able to beat over 45 districts in this country. But what is the problem in places
where there is peace?
31
If Gulu, which has been bedevilled with insecurity for 17 years, can compete with 45 districts
in Uganda, then what is the problem in the other peaceful districts? I think these are the issues
we should be looking at. If you can identify them, then Government should be able to address
them; other than coming here and saying, “let us treat the symptom of admission, let district
quotas be like this”, we should identify the problem. Districts are not the same. There are
some districts which have bigger populations. There are some districts, which are equivalent
to counties. There are some districts which are very small. Therefore, all these things should
be taken into consideration.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I really do not support this quota system. I think we should rather
try to find something that will bring more unity to this country. We had better find something
that will bring nationalism as it used to be in the early 60s. The Ministry of Education should
be more responsive in at least promoting and stocking each district with the best facilities. I
thank you.
MS ALICE ALASO (Woman Representative, Soroti): Thank you very much, Madam
Speaker. I am glad that this afternoon we have realised that we are sick educationally. And
when you are sick, when you are suffering from malaria and you are feeling so bad, it does
not stop you from asking for Panadol, even when you know you need Quinine at the end of
the day.
When we ask for the quota system this afternoon, we are aware that the problem, as pointed
out by the committee, is really big. But just to keep me from having my head burst with this
headache, you give me some Panadol and I will still walk to the clinic and demand that you
give me the proper medication. I just want to get there. That is what I would urge us to do by
taking the quota system. But at the end of the day, I hope that I will get proper medication so
that I do not get back to the problem of having malaria.
There is an outcry, and like the minister asked, “why the outcry?” Why is there an outcry?
Why are people complaining? Why is there restlessness? It is because we are looking at a
situation where we all borrow, we all pay and we are all taxed to sustain government
sponsorship in the university. But at the end of the day, you find that it is only some portion
of the country that is benefiting. That is the worry and the cry of my people in Soroti.
My people say that they do not see how they benefit from these monies we borrow in
Parliament every other day. They ask, “How do you make sure that we will also benefit?”
One of the ways, they argue, is if we had proper educational planning, if we had the foresight
to look into the strategic issues, their children would compete favourably.
For now they are saying the planning has not been fair, as the committee pointed out. They
say the classrooms are not okay. They do not have the teachers they need, they do not have
electricity, and how do you expect them to compete with Namagunga?
It is not that they are dull; they argue that they have the brains, Madam Speaker. Because they
have the brains, they are asking this House to help them move for the meantime. The ministry
is taking the steps it will to give them the laboratories. So, they are saying, give us this
opportunity of a quota system and we will be there as the ministry plans the real treatment.
Madam Speaker, when I look at this argument for the quota system, what comes to my mind
is that it is only affirmative. None of us says it is the final solution, and I will beg my
colleagues to look at it as only affirmative action. I also beg the Ministry of Education to look
at these as affirmative measures that we have put in place in this country, not as a conclusion
in its own self.
32
I would like to point out, for instance, the additional 1.5 points to the female students going
into Makerere. It would be very interesting if the Ministry of Education looked at this policy
and found out that the beneficiaries of this affirmative action have only been the well-to-do
schools in this country.
If this debate had not come up this week, I would have supplied this House with data. I have
commissioned a study in Soroti, and they are telling me the number of girls that have
benefited from this affirmative action is very minimal. Why? Because the strategic problems
have not been addressed. That aside, I am hoping that another step in the affirmative
direction, the quota system, will help us localise the benefits.
Madam Speaker, over time, especially when it comes to government policies, the obsession
has been to do quantitative analysis. Every other time, you just look at how many schools are
there and how many classrooms are there. For instance, in relation to UPE, we are now saying
we have classrooms, but what is the quality of the pupils who will come out of those
classrooms The quality of these students will leave us with a disadvantage which will need
some affirmative action, somewhere. (Interruption)
MRS KAFIIRE RAINER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to inform my
colleague about the results of UPE in Kibuku County. We have some students who sat last
year, they got 29, 30 aggregates, and they were not allowed to go to senior 1. Then those who
sat two to three years back, now they are in senior 3, were told they could not sit for senior 4
so they have reverted to primary 7 to qualify to go to senior 1. Those are the results of UPE
from Kibuku County.
MS ALASO: I thank my colleague for throwing more light on the problems that arise if you
pursue things more quantitatively than qualitatively.
Madam Speaker, I was elected into this House by a district, which has now given birth to
another district. In one of those two districts that I happen to represent now informally; we
could not even raise children in division 1 from PLE. Last year, one of those districts I
happen to represent did not get anyone with division 1! Now, where is the problem? Where
are we headed? What is the future?
In the Ugandan educational system, tomorrow you are going to have these children sit for
exams with the children from Green Hill Academy. You will be telling us indirectly, that the
people down there do not have the ability to compete. Is it their fault? It is a strategic issue. It
is a problem of improper planning. So, I would argue here that at the end of the day if we are
going to put in place some of these policies, we should be able to appreciate the need to better
them qualitatively.
Madam Speaker, the other thing that I want to really emphasize, even as I move towards my
conclusion, is the disparity in what we have always stated as our educational objectives in this
country. While we say that we are looking to national unity, one of the things that has become
so clear is that our educational system is working towards national disunity.
If we leave things to go the way they are, where Soroti as a district cannot generate the cadres
to sustain it, we are grooming a situation where at the end of the day, there will be servants
and the served. Where is the national unity we are talking about?
If Soroti cannot raise graduates, it is not because they are daft, nor because they are lazy
people, but because the circumstances put them in a corner where they cannot perform. At
the end of the day, where shall we borrow the CAOs, the L.C.5s, the MPs from? So, I am
urging the ministry to try to address the discrepancy between what they argue to be the
national objective and the practice. The Minister is often seen hailing those schools that do
33
well. Why do they do well? - Because they have the facilities and the best way to help us to
cover that gap in the meantime is the quota system. Then after that, give us the facilities we
need. I thank you.
MR AGGREY AWORI (Samia Bugwe North, Busia): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise
to support the position of the Committee on a matter of the quota system, but in the same
breath deplore the position of the Cabinet for equivocating such an important matter for so
long.
Madam Speaker, I echo the words of the previous speaker on the matter of affirmative action.
This programme is essentially affirmative action. It is equitable distribution of opportunities
to rise higher than where the person is.
Some people have said we are dealing with symptoms I am not a medical doctor, but I know
that sometimes we take medicine to suppress the symptoms so that we can deal with the basic
problem professionally. My honourable colleagues were saying, if I have a headache and I
know it could be as a result of constipation, I will still take an aspirin to at least get some
temporary relief. The quota system is temporary relief until all the problems that were
enumerated by the Committee leading to this kind of inequitable situation can be redesigned
and looked into.
Why am I deploring the position of the Cabinet? One, the Cabinet has not put emphasis on the
Ministry of Education in terms of policy. The ministry has been extremely weak. One area
we have mentioned is the quota system. An inequitable situation has been going on for so
long.
Two, tertiary institutions existing now where we want to send our kids, do not even know up
to now. I can give an example. Makerere, no council! For how long? Makerere acting Vice
Chancellor, for how long? Is it because the most able candidates for that position at the
moment are women?
The best candidates we have right now for the position of Vice Chancellor for Makerere are
women and we have been equivocating for the last 16 months. We cannot even appoint a Vice
Chancellor! What in the world is going on in the Ministry of Education? It is called a Ministry
for Education and Sports. We have a minister sitting before me in charge of Sports and yet the
ministry has no policy on sports. What kind of situation is this? You have a Minister, is he a
Permanent Secretary? No policy for him! If he was a Permanent Secretary, we would say, for
general administration he can do this, he can do that. But you are appointed a Minister and
you do not even have a policy.
What are his guidelines? This kind of situation is what I am deploring, Madam Speaker. It is
high time and I know there is a Cabinet reshuffle in the pipeline. There is; it is coming up. I
do not know whether the Minister will stay or not. But if he stays, Mr Minister and your
colleagues, I would say, put pressure on the President or the Chairman of the Cabinet. There
is a definite position on various matters pertaining to education in this place.
For tertiary institutions, the ministry has been totally oblivious of what is obtaining on the
ground. You cannot have an institution running without a council. It is unthinkable! The
other day, we set up another institution by a resolution of Parliament called Gulu University. I
do not know what we are going to do about it. We are not even sure.
On the quota system, I would have actually enlarged the scope of this matter by saying, this
sponsorship - By the way, some of my colleagues here, for whatever reason are
misunderstanding the matter of admission and the matter of sponsorship. On admission, we
are all agreeing with no exception, it shall be on merit. So, there is no question of diluting the
34
standards that some people are talking about. It is the sponsorship, and that is why we come to
affirmative action. We need to assist those who are unable financially, but are able
academically. That is the whole problem. I come from a district which is actually advantaged
in various ways. if you look at the quota system here, right now, we are getting six positions
of sponsorship more than we are entitled to. I have to say this but I must be forthright. Busia,
we get 36, but if we have to go to quota system, we should only get 24. I am prepared to
forego.
The other places Bundibugyo can also take advantage of the situation. So, we have to. Why
are we not prepared to surrender a little for the benefit of the rest? That is why we are saying,
look, even if you have got a mouthful, please, take a breather to chew while others are also
taking from the same plates. Just give other people a chance. Some people seem to be
duplicating the idea of affirmative action.
The previous speaker has enumerated a number of examples. In this august House, 56
Members of Parliament would not be here if we had not had affirmative action. Have we
diluted the standard of debating in this august House because we have got women who came
in on affirmation action? No. The situation has even improved, not only in terms of quality,
but even ecstatically. So, Madam Speaker, let us stretch affirmative action to every level so
that everyone who has a chance can really reach the maximum.
I was a bit disappointed, Madam Speaker. I do not want to bring this in at this juncture. Not
long ago, I think it was the last speech made by His Excellency the President as a Chancellor
of the University. He said “Among other things, people are complaining why are the jobs
going to the West, why are jobs going to the West”. He came up with a very apt answer. He
said, “It is because they have got qualifications”. Those who have the qualifications will get
the jobs. Likewise, we are saying, let us give these kids from Moroto, Bundibugyo a chance
also to compete at the same level as the others who have been in advantageous position for so
long.
I was so encouraged to hear from the hon. Member from Bundibugyo saying that Bundibugyo
has 42 students on self-sponsorship. How many came on the sponsorship of the government?
One. This kind of inequitable situation has got to stop. If I had my way, as I have said, I
would surrender the six from Busia and give them to Bundibugyo, at least for equitable
distribution.
Madam Speaker, I would like to support the position of the Committee and deplore the
position of the Cabinet.
MR BEN WACHA (Oyam County North, Apac): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I recognise
the fact that this debate is not about the whole educational policy of this country. I think if we
were to widen it to that, we would be losing focus of what the Committee wants us to do and
will take much more time than we would otherwise have taken on the debate. I want therefore
to confine myself to the issue of sponsorship and admission to public universities as
recommended by the Committee.
Madam, I thank the Government and the Ministry of Education in particular for having
thought that the arrangement that we are talking about is necessary. I am saying they thought
about it because they conceived a paper, which is the basis of our discussion today. The fact
that the ministry conceived this draft paper is recognition that there is a problem in
sponsorship of our students to public universities. I want to thank them for appreciating that
there is a problem and that, that problem must be addressed. My only problem is that the
speed with which the ministry is handling this matter is indicating to us that it is growing cold
feet. This is unfortunate. I advise that this is a problem that cannot wait and this problem must
be tackled head on.
35
The problem arose because of misplacement of emphasis on the issue of sponsorship. I have
no problem with UPE. As a matter of fact, some of us in this House conceived the policy of
UPE as an agenda in a manifesto of one of our Presidential candidates. The way we conceived
it was that UPE was going to bridge an already free educational arrangement, which was
existing then.
Let me explain. Those of us who went to school early know that a number of us even from
primary to junior secondary benefited from either Government scholarships or bursaries. As
you went higher up to HSC, most of us benefited from free education in HSC schools. As you
went higher to university level, you were assured of complete free university education. Our
conception of UPE therefore was that since we already had free education in University, free
education in HSC, some scholarships and bursaries in junior secondary level UPE was going
to be a bridge to having a complete free education for Uganda. That is how we conceived it.
MR MUGAMBE: Thank you, hon. Wacha, for giving way. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I
want to inform hon. Wacha that as far as Universal education is concerned; the idea was
conceived way back in 1948 by UN, when they declared a policy for education for all. In
1963, OAU declared that by 1980 there should be education free for all in Africa. When we
analysed the situation here in Uganda, there was education for a few, that is why it was
possible to have some free education at “A”level and university. That process was creating
more illiteracy at the bottom than literacy so that process would have taken very long without
the present policy of UPE. That is what I wanted to inform the House. Thank you.
MR WACHA: I thank you very much, but I do not know whether you are saying anything
different. My argument is that having established that there must be free education at the top,
UPE, as we conceived it from our Presidential Candidate, was that there was going to be a
bridge of free education in primary schools; so that there is free education for all levels of
education in Uganda.
Unfortunately, and I have no fear of saying this, hon. Museveni thinking that it was a votecatching mechanism, took hold of it and applied it wrongly. What is the result now? The
result is that we are now going to have a huge out flux of students at primary level who were
not paid for, who cannot continue with education upwards because their parents and
guardians have no way of paying for their education at a higher level. There are a lot of
parents out there who cannot now possibly pay for school fees for HSC.
There are a lot of parents out there who would find it inconceivable to pay for fees at
university level. All of you here know it because I know all of you are culprits of having to
pay for people whose only connection with you is that they come from your constituency and
therefore you must pay for their university education. I know you do, I know I do.
It is unfortunate and it is a fact that the method of sponsorship now favours those who have
and ignores completely those who do not have, and those who might not ever have. That is
why I am happy about this arrangement. I am happy that there is some method of ensuring
that every part of Uganda is able to get sponsorship; must be able to get inside the educational
arrangement where university students should be sponsored. I do not believe that there is a
geographical area of Uganda, which is endowed with specially gifted children who can go to
Makerere, and that they are some areas, which are so indulged with such foolish children that
they cannot go to Makerere. If that was so, I would not be here. If that was so, a lot of you
here would not have been here.
I take it that a student from Gulu, from Sir Samuel Baker who manages to get 2 Principal E’s
and two subsidiaries may be even better than a student who does the same subject in
36
Kampala, in the atmosphere with radios, televisions, newspapers and managers to get 2 Bs in
the same subject. That is my contention.
MR BASALIZA ARAALI: I would like to thank my hon. Colleague, Wacha, for giving
way. I would like to inform him that having been a teacher for many years and passed out
students who have got to university, they are students who went there with just 2 principals
and “D” “D”. Now, they are lecturing at the university. They have performed better than
students who passed through the best schools in Uganda, and they are lecturing there now.
Thank you.
MR WACHA: That is exactly what I was coming to. I was going to say that coming from
wherever you come from does not matter. It is the opportunities that you are given that
matter. I come from Anyeke. None of you knows where Anyeke is. That is where I went for
my first primary school. A friend of mine was in Mwiri and his geography teacher asked him
where Nottingham was. When he said he did not know, the teachers said “foolish”. Then the
boy said, “you are also foolish.” Do you know where Loro is? I mean, he had not been given
an opportunity to go to the UK. How do you know where Nottingham is? So it is the
opportunity we are talking about. You give these students a chance, give them sponsorship
and get them admitted. You will see what sort of brains you are missing. That is all we are
talking about.
Coming back to Madam’s report. I am happy about it. Only I did not see the reason for
departing from the Government proposal of 70 per cent and coming down to 45 per cent.
Madam Speaker, if we are talking about the principle of equality and affirmative action, I
think the higher you go, the better for everybody. I thank you, Madam Speaker.
MR KALULE SSENGO (Gomba county, Mpigi): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to
express my reservations about this quota system for the following reasons. I hope the
chairperson of the committee will assist me to overcome my doubts.
Madam Speaker, I come from an area which is very disadvantaged in terms of educational
facilities. We do not have a single good secondary school. My sub county does not have a
single government school. The question I am raising, how am I going to benefit from this
quota system? - Because I do not have any good students coming from my area. How will this
quota system help me?
When the results came out this year, they printed results district by district. I saw a number of
districts which had best students scoring only subsidiaries. How will such districts benefit
from the quota system?
Madam Speaker, I also want to be assisted. If you are not going to lower the standards of our
universities, how shall we ensure equity throughout Uganda, Madam Speaker? –
(Interruption)
DR OKULO EPAK: I am sorry to disturb the hon. Member who was making a very good
case. But could he clarify how his constituency benefits from the present system? Could he
clarify because he asking how his constituency would benefit from the quota system. Can he
inform the august House how his constituency benefits from the present system?
MR KALULE SSENGO: Madam Speaker, that is what I was trying to tell the House. That I
am not going to benefit from the quota system because I do not have good students coming
from there. So, what am I trying to drive at?
Madam Speaker, I am convinced the best way out is to make sure that they improve standards
in our secondary schools. That is the best approach. How do you expect areas which have
37
been traumatised by war like the North, these people have been fighting for the last 17 years.
It is no wonder students cannot pass well there. How will they benefit from this system when
the students cannot perform well? So I would suggest that before we go for this quota system,
let us first of all ensure that we have peace everywhere in Uganda. Because with peace,
Government will be able to come in and assist these schools to do well, to provide the
facilities – (Interruption)
MR ERESU: I thank my honourable friend for giving way. I would like to give him the
following information. It has been stated here very clearly that the quota system we are
talking about is a short-term measure against that long-term measure of improvement of
standards of education in all secondary and primary schools in the country.
MR KALULE SSENGO: Madam Speaker, now how will that short-term measure assist a
man from Gomba who does not have any student passing with good grades? How will it assist
me? This is what I am driving at and this is what I am insisting on – (Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Member, I think what the members want to know is, do
you presently have any students in the university? Does Gomba have any students in the
university? That is what the members want to know.
MR KALULE SSENGO: Madam Speaker, the few students from Gomba are those that have
attended schools here and they have passed. This is what I was going to drive at next.
Because amongst some our colleagues, there is a feeling that some areas are benefiting more
than others. That is a general feeling. But Madam Speaker, I want to inform you, these
figures you see on our papers are actually students coming from all over Uganda. When you
see Wakiso having so many students in the university, it is not that these students are from
Buganda, these are students from the North, from the West, from the East and from
everywhere in Uganda – (Interruption)
MR BASALIZA ARAALI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to inform the hon.
Member that he should not confuse selection with admissions. What usually happens is that
students who are studying in Kampala District, from Mpigi will indicate the district where
they come from. So if they are students from Kabarole studying from here, they will indicate
and they will benefit from the district where they come from not from your district.
MR KALULE SSENGO: Madam Speaker, while I appreciate that argument, what will
happen to students who are not from Mpigi? They are from Koboko or elsewhere, they have
grown up here and they are going to be selected. What is going to happen? I do not think
there is a student, say, whose parents were born in Koboko, but then the student has been born
here, he has studied here. I do not think he will turn round and say, I am from Koboko,
therefore consider me from that end. That student will be considered as a resident of Mpigi.
Madam Speaker, this problem is not as easy as people take it. Because in districts of
Kampala, of Mpigi, of Wakiso, we have Ugandans. We do not have Baganda as people tend
to think. We have Ugandans residing in these districts. Even when you bring forms –
(Interruption)
MR SEBAGGALA: Thank you very much, hon. Kalule Ssengo. The information I want to
give to this House is in support of what hon. Ssengo is talking about. If you look at Kampala
district, the results indicated here show that Government sponsorship was 289. Given its
cosmopolitan nature, I believe that Kampala should be counted differently since it is not part
of Buganda. As per the Constitution, it should be counted separately because it is a United
Nations kind of arrangement where everybody is here.
38
So the moment you look at the 289 students sponsored by the Government from Kampala
District, I am convinced that more than 65 per cent do not come from Buganda. Therefore the
way you are going to treat Mpigi, Wakiso, Kampala and Mukono should be different because
I know that very many students from other regions are coming from those four districts. I
thank you, Madam Speaker.
MS KYATUHEIRE: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I would like to give
information to hon. Kalule that when you are being admitted into the university, you are
requested to indicate the district where you come from. If it has been lacking, that means it is
now going to be compulsory to indicate the district where you come from.
Maybe if I can also answer my neighbour, those people who originate from Kampala district
will indicate it as such. But for my children staying with me in Kampala, when it comes to
filling the forms, they have to indicate that they come from Kanungu. Thank you, Madam
Speaker.
MR KALULE SSENGO: Madam Speaker, I think I have had enough information. Let me
first contribute a bit, then they will give me more information – (Interruption)
MRS BENIGNA MUKIIBI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am actually constrained to
contribute to this motion but I feel obliged to do so. If you recall, in the Sixth Parliament it
was I who brought this motion to the Floor through my contribution. I requested for this quota
system back in 1996. Yes, I did. If you look in the Hansard it is there, and the Minister of
Education picked it up, and they have been grappling with it since. I am so glad it is here
now. They have accepted the principle – (Laughter) and I am hopeful that it will come to a
good conclusion and Kibaale District will benefit from the quota system.
To help my brother hon. Ssengo from Gomba, this can help you even when you do not have
anybody qualifying from your constituency. It will encourage your constituents to work
harder because there will be hope that if a student from Gomba gets the minimum
qualifications for university entry, he can benefit from Government sponsorship. I am sure
this quota system is going to help the rural districts to work even harder to put up secondary
schools where they have none.
What is happening now is that even the teachers in our rural districts are not working as hard.
Year after year they are not putting people into universities because they pass minimally.
They qualify but the sponsorship becomes a problem. If they are assured of some quota of
students who will enter the university on Government sponsorship, they will work harder.
They will compete for those places in the universities. So, it can help you even now. Thank
you.
MR KALULE SSENGO: Madam Speaker, I hope you will give me a little more time
because I have been interrupted so much. What I am sensing now is that we are heading for a
lot of injustice for some of our areas in Uganda. Why? I have had opportunity to be chairman
of some of these schools around Kampala, for a good 16 years. But if you go to the register of
these students in these schools and check, most of them are not from Buganda. Most of them
are from other areas of Uganda.
In fact the present system we have is helping us to build nationalism because when –
(Interruption)- I want the House to appreciate that when they select these students, they are
not selecting Baganda. They are selecting Ugandans and the bigger number –(Interruption)
MR WACHA: Is the honourable member in order to reduce the level of the debate to
acrimony between Baganda and non-Baganda when the issue at hand is sponsorship on the
basis of districts? Nobody has ever talked about Buganda, and nobody is accusing Buganda of
39
having the bigger share in the sponsorship. We are just saying, spread it out. Is he in order,
Madam?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable member, let us not tribalise this debate. We are
talking about national issues. Please, do not identify tribes here. You are out of order.
MR KALULE SSENGO: Madam Speaker, I think I have taken a lot of information. Let me
try to summarise.
I am convinced that the present system has been working very well because now these
districts, which we say have the lion’s share, are not the districts with the lion’s share. These
are Ugandans that are being admitted to university. Madam Speaker, I want to challenge any
of the Members of Parliament here to go and produce the list of the results from Kisubi,
Buddo or elsewhere and you will find that the students who are performing well are from all
over Uganda. They are not from these particular districts that you are complaining about.
Madam Speaker, I would propose –(Interruption)
MR KIZIGE: The honourable member is insisting that the results from the schools
determine the admissions, which is true. Is he in order to mislead the House and make it
believe that all the students for instance admitted to Kisubi are recorded against Wakiso
District? The practice is that for anybody to be admitted to Makerere a citizenship verification
form has to be submitted, which is signed by the LCs from LC I to LC III of the districts of
origin. Is he in order?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable member, that is the practice. You must identify the
district of origin and the LC I of your place of origin must identify you. So, even if they are in
Kisubi they indicate that they come from Kamuli. You are out of order.
MR KALULE SSENGO: Madam Speaker, I think some of my colleagues are evading the
fact that students will still study in say Wakiso or Mpigi. These are people from all parts of
Uganda but because they have grown up here, they will not say they are from where –
(Laughter)- they will say they are from Kampala. This is a fact. That is why I am saying that
it seems there is a hidden agenda among some people because the present system has been all
right and it should not be disturbed.
Madam Speaker, one of my colleagues did point out that –(Interruption)- could I be
protected? I gave people time to speak so they should also give me time. One of my
colleagues pointed out that a student who gets the minimum entry points will be able to go to
university. This is what is going to lower standards, because whoever gets the minimum
requirement will be able to go to Makerere and be sponsored.
In conclusion, I am making two major proposals. One, now that the Government is putting up
a University in Gulu, we have another one in Mbarara and perhaps very soon we shall have
one in the East, let us set up more universities. Let us expand the existing universities so that
we can take in more students instead of going for the quota system.
Two, instead of rushing for the quota system, let the Government first put facilities in all our
schools so that we can all compete on an equal basis. After that then we can go for the quota
system. Madam Speaker, with those few remarks, I thank you very much.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much.
40
MRS LOYCE BWAMBALE (Woman Representative, Kasese): Thank you very much,
Madam Speaker for giving me opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I rise to
support the motion.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, members, order!
MRS BWAMBALE: I rise to support the motion wholeheartedly and I want to thank the
Minister for putting his point across. Under normal circumstances, there should actually be a
comprehensive policy that will enable us to make good laws. That is the ideal. But why have
we come to this? We have come to this because the Government is not able to sponsor all the
children that qualify for university. That being the case, the admission is limited. Therefore,
some action must be taken since Government is sponsoring only 2,000 or 4,000 students.
The issue at stake is, how do we distribute this cake to the districts, so that we all feel we are
part of it? We all pay tax, and as for the money that is borrowed, we shall all pay. We are
talking about access to a very limited resource. So, do we appear to be assisting everyone we
all represent, those who are and those who are not here? I have two alternatives: either look at
the contribution of the district to the GDP and GNP - in which case my constituency would be
on top, or not. Yes, with those industries we would be advantaged.
However, I am supporting the Committee that in this quota system, let us be fair and take the
population irrespective of how much they contribute to the GNP and GDP. They are Ugandan
and they are entitled to access the 2,000 places that are available. I agree we are going to wait,
and passing this resolution will not exonerate the Ministry from taking up the responsibility of
coming up with a comprehensive policy, which may even take contrary issues to what we
have passed here. We are here for an affirmative action in accordance with Article 32 of the
Constitution, which has been recited as one pillar of the State.
That Article directs - and it is the supreme law - that the state shall take affirmative action,
including redressing historical imbalances. We are one pillar of the state, the Parliament. In
our right mind and the role of representation and oversight, we are here to support this
resolution, which is calling upon us hon. Members of Parliament to act and act now. Today is
our time to take decisions. We cannot relegate those decisions to another Parliament or to
another time.
I want to agree that this is our Parliamentary Committee, which studied issues in detail and
laid them on the Table in a very competent manner. And it is chaired by a member of Uganda
Women Parliamentarians Association, and I give it morale as it demonstrates that affirmative
action can be productive. (Hear, Hear). We would like to demonstrate that the whole
Parliament can support affirmative action - but that was a diversion. My point was actually
that it is upon us Members of this House to support the findings of the committees that we
have created.
These are our committees of Parliament. We do not have the time to go into the details of this.
They did the detailed work for us and I would like those contributing to stand here and point
out factors that are not true and say, “Because such and such is not true then we cannot
support the report.” None of us has come up to say that. The honourable minister stood here
ably and said, “We are carrying on consultations.” On what? Consultations are being carried
on and they should continue being carried on. What are we trying to do? To take our
resolution so that our consultations will in the long-term enrich the policy that will eventually
be passed by the Executive.
This is our opportunity to contribute to the policy because policy making is the mandate of
the Executive. This is consultation here and very important issues have come out of here. I
41
would like to urge the honourable minister to take these important issues raised on the Floor
of this House and endeavour to make a long-term policy in as far as this issue is concerned.
My district is called Kasese. It is one of the richest districts in this country but the education
situation is very appalling. We have 21 sub-counties and only 13 sub-counties have
Government grant-aided schools. For the last 17 years, only three secondary schools have
been grant-aided. The 10 were grant-aided between 1976 and 1986 at an average of one
school per year. But now for 17 years only three schools have been grant-aided. That is a fear.
Since 1987 we started with 18 students qualifying for Makerere, the following year they were
about 35, the following year they were about 56, and in 1999 they were 50.
The records in this report show that in 1999, out of the 50 who qualified only 20 were taken
on government sponsorship. The rest were not taken. From an area that contributes heavily to
the national cake! When it comes to accountability, zero. But we have said we are not going
to follow that lie by accident of birth. Yes, let all of us Ugandans benefit equally.
I do not agree with this situation of saying people in Kampala come from upcountry. Tell me,
which district does not have people who come from other areas? Tell me one; it is not there.
Take Kasese for example. The 12 students we are talking about, chances are that about three
come from Kilembe Mines. Yes, people have been there for many years and now that is
where they belong. Others come from KCCL and the rest. They are not ethnically entrenched
there. They are Ugandans living there and we are saying no matter where you are, let the
criteria be population in the district irrespective of the structure of that –(Interruption)
MRS BYAMUKAMA: I see hon. Ssengo standing up persistently, even when you advise
otherwise, and the hon. Loyce Bwambale is making very important points to this august
House. (Laughter). Madam Speaker, I have never stood up on a point of order but I am
compelled to do so now. Is he in order?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the honourable member was rather entranced by the
contribution of hon. Bwambale. So, as she spoke he kept on standing. (Laughter).
MRS BWAMBALE: Madam Speaker, I thank you for the wise ruling. All I was saying is
that we are national legislators so let the debate, not deteriorate into ethnic issues. I beg to
request. If it has been mentioned, let us call it a slip of the tongue and we continue with the
real issues so that we can protect and portray a good image of our Parliament.
I would like to seat down after requesting members to support this report in the spirit of
equitable distribution of the available resources. However, I do not want to miss the point of
requesting the Ministry to go ahead -(Interruption)
MR BASALIZA ARAALI: I would like to inform my colleague here about the important
point she has made that some people who are in Kasese come from other areas. I was
headmaster of St. Leo’s College, Bukuumi. I would like to inform members that I have Old
Boys here, like hon. Eng. Byabagambi there - he does not come from Kabarole, we have Mr
Masereka there - he does not come from Kabarole, and then we have our friend Elijah Okupa
who was coming all the way from the East, from Teso. So, that is the situation. There is no
reason or point of saying that the people from here should not come from other areas. They
do, and everybody has got his origin but we are all Ugandans and we should be allowed to go
anywhere and study from anywhere. Thank you for giving way.
MRS BWAMBALE: Okay, I wind up like this. I support the principle raised by hon. Alaso.
What we are doing is prescribing Aspirin in the short-term but in the long-term we shall need
a more sustainable action, which is not affirmative but a long lasting action. I beg to support.
Thank you.
42
MR JOSEPH MUGAMBE (Nakifuma County, Mukono): Thank you Madam Speaker. I
begin by thanking the chairperson of the committee. I also thank the Minister for having
clarified the situation. Beginning from his letter of the 17th of February, it shows that he
entirely wanted input before he improved on the policy, which he also emphasised in his letter
of April. Before I comment on whether I oppose or support the motion I would like to make
the following observation.
Scientifically speaking, it might be a problem to implement this quota system because you
have to write a programme that can allocate these students without any bias. We have to
define some of the variables properly. For example, what do we look for in districts, is it
district of origin or is it district of birth? Is it district of residence? And the district of who; of
the parents? Is it of the birth of the parents or of the children; and of who; the mother or the
father?
You know, once you make a wrong assumption, you get a problem. To address the problem
we must know the variables involved. What is the actual problem we are trying to solve?
From what my colleagues have submitted, they are saying there is a problem. The solution is
to address issues right from nursery, primary and secondary schools.
MR ERESU: The member holding the Floor, I thank you very much. You have stated that
there will be complications in rewriting how the approach to this subject will be implemented.
The information I want to give you is, out there in districts, there are people from different
parts of Uganda living there. They also have their children in those disadvantaged districts, in
those disadvantaged schools.
The thing is, when those children from other areas of Uganda are in those disadvantaged
districts, they will also benefit, because that is the district they come from. With this quota
system, they will also be given the advantage of benefiting from this sponsorship. That is the
information I am giving you. The question of saying the operations will discriminate will be
difficult I do not see it in that way. I thank you.
MR MUGAMBE: Thank you hon. Eresu for that information. Maybe I should tell you more
about how it could have been done. If we had to address the quota system, we needed to have
educational districts. An educational district is whereby there is a given area where students
study and they never move out. So, that student is disadvantaged perhaps right from the
beginning to the end. That is an educational district. But we are now talking about these
administrative districts. There are some other variables involved. There is a difference
between a day school and a boarding school. When you do not define the district properly,
you might have a problem.
I was surprised to see that Mukono is taking a lot of students to Makerere. I would like to
know how they are defined. Is that by district of study, district of residence or district of
origin? Because your parents might be residing in Kampala, but your origin might be in
Mukono. So, which one is taken? What is the origin –(Interruption)
MR NANDALA MAFABI: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Thank you, hon.
Mugambe, for giving way. Even the committee says that, a candidate should be from a
particular district and a Ugandan. They also say that, selection should be based on the district
of origin as endorsed by local leaders, LC I and LC II, on forms filled by candidates who are
applying to the universities.
What will this mean? A child who has a well-to-do parent who lives in Kampala but
originates from Sironko, will go back to Sironko and get the scholarship. Where will the
peasant go now?
43
MR KAWEESI NDAWULA: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I wish to inform the
honourable member on the Floor about the quota system we are talking about.
Let us take an example of two students, one from Kampala and one from Kiboga, who both
go to Buddo and do the same combination. If the one from Kampala gets 17 points and the
other one gets 12 points, they will all be admitted at Makerere. But the one who comes from
Kampala will fail to get a state scholarship because there are more students in Kampala. The
one from Kiboga will get a state scholarship because there are fewer students from Kiboga.
The import of that is, while both students were exposed to the same teaching and the same
environment, a scholarship is being given to someone less meritorious than the other one who
got better grades. That is the inequity in it. I thank you.
MR MUGAMBE: Thank you for the information. Maybe before time runs out, let me come
up with a suggestion. Other than allocating positions at the university, let us have the
individual districts provide bursaries. The bursaries should be recommended from individual
districts. The money which we are going to use for these bursaries from the districts, will
support the students according to their choice and the ability of the family. We could do this,
other than make it general.
First of all, not all districts are of the same size, and not all students in –(Interruption)
MS NAMUYANGU: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, and I thank my colleague for
giving way. He is suggesting a very good strategy of using bursaries at the district level. May
I know where the source of funding will be?
MRS BYAMUKAMA: I think we are losing sight of the gist of the whole thing. What are
we talking about? What is our interest? I do not want to take a position and lose sight of the
interest.
When you look at the Constitution, under national objectives, XII says:
“(ii) The State shall take necessary measures to bring about balanced development of the
different areas of Uganda and between the rural and urban areas.
(iii) The State shall take special measures in favour of the development of the least developed
areas.”
The issue that is coming out very clearly is that, it is in the interest of all Ugandans to have
people who are educated, whether they originate from the rural or urban areas. Therefore, it is
important that we also take into account that we all have a right to education, according to
Article 30.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, the essence is, it is very clear that for a child who comes from
Nakapiripirit, there is no electricity, no laboratory, no roof over their heads, no shoes. When
they can, and they are given an opportunity to get marks that qualify them to get into
Makerere University, they should be given an opportunity. (Applause) That is the essence,
Madam Speaker.
When we talk about tribal issues, it is very parochial and beneath us as Parliament, because
the district lines do not go along ethnic or tribal lines. That is clear. Therefore, Madam
Speaker, the interest of this House is to make sure that we have equitable distribution,
development of all districts and that everyone shares equitably in the national cake.
44
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Mugambe, try to wind up.
MR MUGAMBE: I would like to thank all those who have contributed. Maybe we are
talking at different wavelengths. (Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. Mugambe, just speak. Do not listen to the people around
you.
MR MUGAMBE: Sorry, Madam Speaker, there was some interference. As a computer
programmer, I normally define my variables very well. A student’s district of residence may
not be his district of origin. I come from Mukono District and we have a cross-section of
people, and I am not talking about any particular group. So, when people do not see the
problem, I also get a bit mixed up.
But let me come to the point I want to drive at, Madam Speaker. I am sorry I have had a lot of
interruptions. My colleagues here are putting in more information, and in a way, they do not
want me to drive my point home.
Let the quota system not be based on districts but on the grade of the school. In educational
planning, there is a way you can grade these schools. In that way, you can easily give some
schools more points than the others. If the schools are disadvantaged, you give the districts
money for bursaries. That would be another alternative, and maybe a better solution. I oppose
the motion that proposes a quota system by districts.
MR TOMSON ANANG-ODUR (Kwania County, Apac): Madam Speaker, I thank you for
giving me this opportunity to contribute to this debate. I would like to thank the Committee
for the report, which has been well written, studied and put before us here. I also wish to
thank the minister for his comments to this Parliament on the decentralisation system for
scholarships.
Madam Speaker, I wish to start with a plea to all Members of Parliament. We should be, as
much as possible, patriotic and fair-minded. Let us look at Uganda as a unit for which we are
all responsible, and think about all Ugandans who look to this Parliament for a fair and good
law.
Madam Speaker, I want to register my disappointment with the Minister of Education’s
statement to this Parliament. The minister gave the impression that this Parliament cannot do
anything, cannot consider any policy issues, unless he has taken them to the Cabinet. I wish to
think that what we are talking about here is not creating a new policy.
Madam Speaker, this Parliament is not creating a new policy. There already exists a policy of
sponsorship for students at Makerere University and other public universities. What we are
talking about here is not even increasing the number of students for this scholarship. We are
not! We are not talking about increasing costs for these programmes. We are not talking about
new policies.
Madam Speaker, what we are talking about here is a system, which can be fair for all
Ugandans; a system which can make sure that every Ugandan gets access to education.
This is a very important matter we are discussing. It a matter of the Constitution; it applies to
the application of the principle of equity, fairness and reduction in present disparities in
development in this country. We are talking about helping to develop a country so that it
becomes, as much as possible, evenly developed.
45
Madam Speaker, we want to develop Uganda so that wherever you are, you can be happy. We
do not want to create a situation where some parts of Uganda become a river reservoir, as has
been the case in the past and now. We want to make sure that the wealth and riches of this
country are quite widely spread.
Madam Speaker, I have heard debate about these points I am going to mention, but I just want
to say that we are not here talking about quota admission. This is not the debate here. We are
talking about students who have already been admitted to public universities. I think that
point should be understood. It has been said, and I want to re-emphasise it here because some
honourable members seem not to get it right.
The other point is that, we agree this is not a permanent solution to our problem. It is a
temporary solution. It is a stopgap. So, we are still asking the Minister of Education to
introduce this while he works on a programme to create facilities for all schools in Uganda,
on an equal basis. Also, to introduce a better inspectorate system for our schools, and to
urgently, in my opinion, introduce education loans to enable these students to acquire
university education.
Those are the things that will bring us the permanent solution we are talking about. But this
issue will give us a breathing space so that areas, which have been disadvantaged, can at least
be able to have some people go to university and get jobs.
Madam Speaker, the disparities in development in this country are documented. As I speak
now, in the North and in many other rural parts of this country, over 70 percent of the people
live below the poverty line. But in some better areas, that figure is about 35 percent. You can
see that there is need to take affirmative action to bridge this gap between the very poor of our
society and the better areas. This, as has been stated many times on this Floor, is what our
Constitution provides for.
Madam Speaker, the disparity in education is even worse than in other indicators of economic
development. Yet we know, and it has been stated here, that education is the basis of
development. Education is the basis of self-development, community development and
national development. You cannot have development without these important ingredients.
Therefore, what we are talking about here is a very important issue, which we must be able to
sort out.
If you are not educated, as was observed by Aggrey Awori, you cannot get a good job. If you
cannot get a good job, you cannot earn any money, you cannot invest, and therefore, you will
be poor. That creates a vicious circle of poverty. I think time has come, Madam Speaker, for
us to break that circle of poverty in certain areas of this country.
Madam Speaker, because they realised this fact, the fathers and mothers of our present
Constitution thought it very important to put this in the national objectives and directive
principles of state policy. We have heard this on this Floor of Parliament. What we are talking
about here is just implementing what the Constitution directs the state to do. I think this is a
fair thing, which we must do to be able to make sure that we create a favourable condition for
all areas of Uganda.
Madam Speaker, I want to make the humble statement that, this Parliament is charged with
the responsibility to defend the Constitution. The present system where the children of the
rich are the ones getting money from taxes paid by the poor is against the Constitution as
stated here. I think we should defend this Constitution, and we can do so by correcting the
anomaly that has been going on for too long. I hope my colleague, the Minister, is listening to
this, and I am sure he will be able to defend the Constitution as we are doing.
46
Madam Speaker, government sponsorship as it is presently designed, will not bring us the
desired result of a developed country, which is united and which is in love with itself. I want
to say here that part of our problem in Uganda now is because of the distribution of the
national cake. We should try to understand this.
If you leave some areas to be too poor, you are creating problems even for those areas that are
rich. You must make sure that everybody feels like they are part of the system, and this is my
proposal.
Madam Speaker, I had actually prepared some resolutions, but on looking carefully at the
report which has been ably presented by the chairperson -(Interruption)
MR OMARA ATUBO: Madam Speaker, the tragedy the colonialists put us in has been
replicated and duplicated by successive governments. As my brother Tom Odur has said, if
you ignore or marginalise an area and then develop another area, you are actually creating a
problem for this developed area as much as the one which is under-developed. Those of us
who neighbour Karamoja are very conscious of this.
Many years back, people neighbouring Karamoja, from Lango, Teso and Acholi, were just
seeing what was going on in Karamoja. It is only when it has exploded, and the past has fallen
on us, that now we are beginning to see that we should have actually seen this long time ago.
We should have supported them and rejected the marginalisation of Karamoja.
What the British did was to concentrate in the Central Province, the centre of Uganda.
Universities, tertiary institutions and so on, are in the centre, and this is going on now. You
have nearly all the universities here, commercial centres, industries and so on.
Do you know what is happening? My children who have come from Otuke have studied here.
They are not likely to go back to Otuke. They are likely to remain here and build here. The
students who have studied in Nkozi are not likely to go back. The students who have studied
in Mukono, in Ndejje are not likely to go back.
So, my brothers, if you develop one area and let the rest of Uganda flop, these Ugandans are
not going to go back to their homes. If you want us to go back to our homes, give us
development back home and that is the only way we are going to do it. Thank you very much.
MR ANANG-ODUR: Honourable member, thank you for that information. Madam Speaker,
as I wind up, I want to say that I support this report. I am appealing to Members of Parliament
to approve it. Madam Speaker, at the time we are going to pronounce ourselves on this report,
I wish to make some proposal for amendments.
Lastly, I wish to go back to the Minister of Education. It was noted that this Parliament is not
a workshop, and I want to say that indeed we are not a circus. When we pronounce ourselves
on this report, I wish to request Government to take urgent steps to put these
recommendations in practice.
I am saying this because, Madam Speaker, we are talking about 4,000 places that are
available for sponsorship by the State. We are saying modalities should be worked out for
them to be distributed equitably and fairly. I am happy they have brought the population
quota system. I wonder why some people are opposed to it.
What we are saying here is, let every district get what is due to it according to the size of the
population. I think this can be the fairest thing we can think about. Unless one is - I do not
know whether it is parliamentary to say, greedy. What we are talking about here is really
47
fairness to everybody. When this is done, I am sure all of us will be happy, and I am sure even
the minister will be happy to work with us. Thank you so much.
MR OKUPA ELIJAH (Kasilo County, Soroti): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise here to
support the report of the Committee, and I would like to thank the Committee for having
brought this report when I am in Parliament. It is something that I am going to be very proud
of when I retire.
Mr Minister, I am happy that you did write to the Committee that the time is now for this
quota system to be implemented. But I was a bit disappointed when you were trying to shy
away from that communication. It is something that you as the Minister of Education would
be proud of.
You should be proud that this thing happened at the time when you were the Minister of
Education in Uganda. It is something that you should be proud of when you get out of
government. It is something that your children also would be proud of. They will say that this
happened when our father, when our grandfather was a minister.
Madam Speaker, I strongly support the position of the Committee on this quota system.
Members here have quoted the Constitution, they have debated in support of this, and I will
not go so much into that. But there were other issues also that had been raised in the report
that I would want to highlight.
The Committee raised the issue about the ban on the recruitment of secondary school
teachers. This is something that needs to be addressed. So many children are leaving primary
seven. Who is going to take care of these children? When is the ban on the recruitment of
secondary school teachers going to be lifted?
The Committee has talked about the hardship allowance for these teachers in the difficult
areas. How much is each given? In the report they say 65 shillings per week for the pupils.
What comes to my mind is that it is a meagre figure. I think we need to revise these figures to
really encourage the teachers to move to these areas so that we find a long-term solution to
this situation. If this remains low, then there is going to be a very big problem in the
education sector.
We must be serious in addressing the issue of education in this country, and it is not only in
the secondary schools, but also in the primary schools. There has been a complaint about the
number of teachers in primary schools.
Madam Speaker, you were the guest of honour in Arapai Primary School. You saw the
number of teachers they have in a primary seven school. They only had seven teachers and
yet the population of pupils was in thousands. These pupils come out every year. What are
you doing to help the situation? If you do not arrest the situation, then the number of students
moving to the universities will still remain very low –(Interruption)
MR OGWEL LOOTE: I thank you, hon. Okupa, for giving way. Madam Speaker, I would
like to inform my honourable colleague that one time the Ministry of Education called upon
graduates from NTCs to be recruited in the primary schools when the ban was still on.
MR OKUPA: Thank you for that information, hon. Loote. So, we must address that issue to
solve these problems in the long run, but as per now, affirmative action must be implemented.
It will be something that we shall take as a gift as we are going back to our constituencies
during this recess.
48
Madam Speaker, I need clarification on the number of state house sponsored students at
Makerere. In the report, they talk of ‘unspecified number’; where are these students coming
from? Are these the students from this country? Is it classified information that we should
not know the number of these students because there percentage is higher than the percentage
of students from the districts represented at the university. If it is State House sponsored
students, I would have been happy if this State House scholarship was taking students from
these disadvantaged districts.
Madam Speaker, as I wind up, let me humbly ask the honourable minister to do the needful
and support the quota system. Thank you.
MRS BETTY UDONGO: (Woman Representative, Nebbi): Thank you very much,
Madam Speaker. I want to first express my disappointment at the minister’s submission. It is
so hurting for a person like me coming from disadvantaged district to be told that Government
is still considering the quota system.
Madam Speaker, I come from Nebbi District, and for the last five years we have not been able
to send even one student on Government sponsorship. The 17 people you are seeing are
Kampala Nebbians, not the Pakwach Nebbians. These are students whose parents stay in
Kampala but originate from Nebbi. I want to say that the people who have studied in the
Nebbi schools have not had opportunity, not because they are not able to compete favourably
when they come to the university, but the circumstances under which they study.
Madam Speaker, if I didn’t have the opportunity to study in Gayaza, I would not be in this
House today. The girls we studied together with who never had the opportunity to come for
their higher education in Kampala never made it. One of the reasons why I had to leave
Makerere as a lecturer and join politics, is to see that such policies that are advantageous to
my people are supported.
Madam Speaker, as an educationist, I know what it means to be in a ditch where people are
not educated; that means you have no access to jobs; that means you cannot even support the
others; that means you continue to be marginalized over and over again, that is why I strongly
support this quota system.
Madam Speaker, I do accept that this may be short-term, but we need a long-term remedy.
As an educationist talking from an experience, I went back home and started an A-level
school last year, purposely to help some median to access higher education. Because with this
decentralised system, we have even failed to raise graduates to go to our sub counties as sub
county chiefs.
And I want to inform you that out of the 5 best students last year, 2 were from my school; I
am not sure if they are going to access higher education because they are from poor families.
They scored As, Bs, Cs, but if they are to compete with students in Kampala, Madam
Speaker, they will be nowhere. So, I do support the quota system based on the districts, so
that at least some of these students that may on the Government standard look like they are
low grade, can compete with these other students from Kampala.
MRS BABA DIRI: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. The information I would like to
give to the honourable member and to the whole House, is that we are really not fighting for
the whole sponsorship; we are only fighting for only half the quota system. The half, which is
50 per cent, is benefiting the good schools; that mean the 2000 will stand as it is. We are only
demanding for that small quota for the unfortunate districts. So, those who are thinking that
we are demanding too much, it is not much. That is the information I wanted to give you.
Thank you very much.
49
MRS UDONGO: Thank you very much for that information. Madam Speaker, I want to
differ from the position of the Committee on the issue of the panel. The reason they gave for
not having the District Selection Committee is that they will be corrupted. But, corruption in
Uganda transects from down to up; so, the issue of corruption can still be at the higher levels.
So, that to me is not a very convincing reason. Besides that people here will register their
students there, but they will not study from there; so, when it comes to selection, they will say
they originate from there, and still this will be a disadvantage to those students who study
from those districts.
MR NANDALA MAFABI: Thank you my colleague for giving way. In fact that would
have been the best, but the issue now is: If you come from the district and you do your exams
and pass, the quota will benefit you so long as you are the best at the district, which is very
bad in the sense that if he was to come from Buddo; he would compete more favourably than
the one who has come from the village school, which is not good.
The equity we are talking about is not there; yes, that is what the report is saying that a person
will be registered from his LC1. Eng. Kaweesi put up a very good case, and said if I am from
Kampala; I have got 17 points, because of the big competition, I will not be admitted on
Government sponsorship. But I have got 12, and in Sironko there is nobody who has 12, I will
get Government sponsorship, and yet I have been subjected to the same conditions like the
one in Buddo, which is very unfair. Unless we are going to take the quota on schools which
are in the villages, but not wherever you are. Thank you.
MRS UDONGO: I don’t agree with you, but that is your opinion. I support the view that
district people compete for those places because they are all disadvantaged, and they are
working under the same conditions.
So, Madam Speaker, I would go in for the district selection because they are the people who
know these students and our districts are not so big. They have information in DEO’s office
that can help these students who have passed and may not be able to compete favourably at
the national level. Besides that, JAB had been selecting for all these years; why hasn’t it been
able to give places to those disadvantaged districts? I thank you.
DR OKULO EPAK (Oyam County, South): I thank you, Madam Speaker. I wish to submit
that the issue we are debating now is not a policy. We are discussing implementation of an
existing policy, and let us not confuse ourselves as if there is something new in a policy area,
which we are developing here. The general policy, which has been in operation for years, is
Government sponsorship. What we are debating here is how to implement that policy. We
have been implementing it in a certain away; we are now saying, yes, that way should be
reviewed and we have the quota system.
The policy of admission sets the minimum standard; what we are debating here is not what
should be the minimum standard for admission. We are debating that those who get the
minimum qualification for admission based on their district should benefit from a quota
system rather than on global competition.
There is a factor of population alone on the question of global competition. Districts with
small population, even if they have one best student, and districts with greater population
have 20 best students; if you subject that one student to compete with the 20, obviously he
may not merit, and this is the issue.
I would like to remind the honourable minister that the Sixth Parliament passed a circular to
each Member of Parliament suggesting the methods of implementing the sponsorship. This is
not something new, and for him to come here today and say that we have not done enough
work is really to be a bit awkward.
50
I was one of those who recommended the quota
support it, and I am still supporting that position.
this method we are debating here, which
administratively, is going to give you a limelight.
to get the limelight.
system, and I gave a number of reasons to
I would want to encourage the minister that
he should have actually implemented
Let nobody deprive you of this opportunity
Madam Speaker, what we are debating here is a constitutional issue; we are trying to
operationalise specific constitutional dispensations, which hon. Dora has ably read, and I am
not going to dilute her presentation of the case.
Now, as Members of Parliament, it is our duty to operationalise the Constitution and protect
it. If you are a Member of Parliament, and you are being asked to operationalise a
constitution and protect it, and you are turning your back to it, then you might as well go back
and not be in this House. (Laughter)
Madam Speaker, the other thing we are discussing here is the question of justice, fairness and
equity; all these are essential in the economic development of any nation. If there is anybody
in this august House who is a Member of Parliament, and a genuine politician who doesn’t
believe in the principles of justice, equity and fairness, then I regret why he should find
himself in this august House. But I do believe that there is no such person in this august
House; and therefore, we are going to support the Committee and pass the recommendations
without any hesitation. (Applause)
Madam Speaker, I want to ask the honourable minister, this august House sometime passed a
recommendation that State House sponsorship should be transferred to the Ministry of
Education. That is where the question of injustice and fairness and lack of equity has been
practiced for the last 17 years, and has created dis-equilibrium in the distribution of
knowledge and human resource development in this country. Could the honourable minister
tell us whether the State House sponsorship has been transferred to the Ministry of Education,
and it will be one of the sponsorship, which will merit the arrangement we are discussing
here?
Madam Speaker, I wish to inform this august House, for those who have doubts about UPE. I
started my primary 1 under a tree, not in a classroom. There was no paper; there was no pen;
there was no slate; there was no chalk. I would clear the sand and use my figure to write on
the sand. Has it stopped Okulo Epak from having a PhD, and sitting in this Parliament?
Intelligence and ability must be respected; it can come from anywhere and we should not stop
people.
I know of Langi who did not qualify to go to Makerere University, but they were sponsored
by the Lango District Council then. They went abroad, they passed with better qualifications
than those who were admitted in Makerere. Now these are practical situations we have
experienced; we should not mess ourselves up. People must have access to human resource
development, equitably and in a just manner.
The former Lango District Council was actually the first in this country to introduce
compulsory free primary education in 1963. So, those who think it is a grand new idea may
have to know that it is actually not. In those days, girls from primary to junior were paying
half fees. If we paid 6 shillings then, they paid 3 shillings; all of them qualified for bursaries
for high education. I am not talking about Lango; I am talking about Uganda.
Now the honourable minister is trying to disappoint this Government, which has done so well
on affirmative action. Why is the honourable minister letting down President Museveni and
the Movement Government? Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
51
PROF. VICTORIA MWAKA (Women Representative, Luwero): Thank you very much,
Madam Speaker. I stand to partially support the report because I support the principle but
differ in the methodology. I support affirmative action because I am a product of affirmative
action from school.
There was a programme instituted by the Faculty of Education in 1966 when they were
experimenting whether you can have excelling pupils from very poor schools, and that
experiment was in Makerere College School. I was in Mukono Senior Secondary School; it
was by then a private school. We had to sit what they used to call a qualifying test in English,
both written and oral, in order to sit Cambridge School Certificate.
I passed the oral and written, and I was able to sit senior four in a private school. We didn’t
have a centre, so we sat 300 of us in Lugogo; I got a second grade. They selected two
candidates from each poor school, and I was one of those who were selected before the
examinations came back. We used to sit in January and the examination would come back
from Cambridge when we had already started. When the results came back, of course in a
poor school, I was the second and the best among the worst. (Laughter)
Now, when I came to Makerere College School, and I accessed the good environment at
senior six, I was the best girl. I was given 3.1.1 in Geography; we passed three girls in Upper
Second, and I was there. (Laughter) When they floated the German scholarships, I was given
scholarship to do a Masters. I performed well and I was given a scholarship for a PhD; I got
my PhD in three years. Therefore, I am saying I support the principle of affirmative action,
but I differ in the method of how things will be done.
I was floated from a poor school, not a poor district. So, we are saying let us review this, and
see those poor schools where there is a potential; and say we give a bonus mark like they give
the bonus of the affirmative action on women; affirmative action on children of staff are given
4 points; affirmative action for those people with disability are given 4 points and so forth.
Madam Speaker, let us stop lamenting about these poor schools. It is we who have facilitated
this tendency. How have we done it? We have facilitated this tendency of– (Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, Order!
PROF.. MWAKA: We have facilitated the tendency of the dichotomy between poor schools
and the good schools. Parents Teacher Associations (PTA) facilitates poor schools; if you
look at the fees structure, the Board of Governors fees are lower than the PTA. Because we
are scrambling for the few good schools, everybody wants to take their child in those schools
because you are paying PTA, instead of building our own schools back home.
On that programme of affirmative action in the college school, we were quite many and I
have – (Interruption)
MR MUKULA RICHARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you my honourable
colleague for giving way. I seek clarification as to the method you are trying to propose,
where we are going to pick the poor schools as reference points. Don’t you think one can
easily study from a good school and go and register in the remote school?
PROF. MWAKA: Definitely that would mean that the head teachers don’t know what they
are doing. But if you are a credible head teacher, there is no way one can register in two
schools.
52
I was talking about lamenting about poor schools. I can give you a list of very good schools
with very good students who really were very competitive- they are just haphazardly
presented- Butobere, Mutorere, Iganga, Kigulu Girls, Mwiri, Nyakasura, Wanyange, Kitovu,
Nabumali, Kyebambe, Ntale, Sir Samuel Baker, Nvara, Arowet, Tororo Girls etcetera.
Therefore there was no need to commute from there to look for a good school. So, you
should start by building our own schools to bring them back to their original standard.
Honourable – (Interruption)
MR OGWEL LOOTE: Thank you, hon. Victoria, for giving way. Madam Speaker, what
we are saying is; while we are talking about the quota system as a temporary measure, we
should go back and build the capacity in those rural areas. Also knowing that we have limited
resources and schools are built per sub county, lets build the capacity and improve those
schools so that they can compete globally.
PROF.. MWAKA: Thank you very much. I appreciate that, but we are putting more
emphasis on swallowing panadol to cure malaria than swallowing fansidar or chloroquine.
So, these schools – (Interjection) – I am saying we are just looking at Gayaza; we are looking
at Namagunga; we are looking at Kisubi and we are scrambling for those few, and that is why
we have created this problem.
Why I am proposing that it should be by school rather than by district; it is because, for
example, I can take my children to three districts. I have roots in Kayunga; I have roots in
Luwero and I have roots in Iganga. So, I will see where there is more room, and if my child
is in Buddo, I put Iganga, he scores highly; definitely, he will be picked for Iganga, the poor
school.
You should go to Kigulu College; go to Busiki College and see the good girls and boys from
those schools and bring them up like they brought Mwaka from Mukono who got a second
grade and now she is a prof.essor. But by districts, you are mixing up so many things. I know
all our children are here in good schools and they are the ones who are going to come.
Definitely, those of the poor, you will not come at any cost anyway. So, if you want them to
come, focus on the school. I think that will be a better method of operation.
Then about this 50 – 50 admission, I will prefer if it is by population, and it is good I have
seen this worked out. I do not know who worked it out. Whether it is the Committee or not,
this is a better method statistically than taking Kalangala to bring in fifty and then you take
Mbarara with 44 sub-counties also to put in 50. There will be a lot of wastage. So we shall be
developing by elimination rather than developing by addition. Let us try to strike a balance so
that we do not throw away the baby with the bath water where very good students are not
funded because they are in a good district.
Then I will also go with hon. Nandala’s proposal that perhaps in order to make people show
commitment, let the parent pay something. They pay for HSC and some HSC schools pay
highly. How do they manage to go through HSC where they pay and now they are not even
able to pay Shs 200,000! Very few HSC schools pay less than Shs 200,000. So, if we say, let
the parent at least show commitment and pay a token of Shs 200,000, then the Government
will top up. We will still have more coming in because even the parents are contributing. But
this dependency syndrome is going to kill Uganda. We always want free things. Even if you
have, you want free things. Let us show commitment by the parents and Government
contributing.
Also, let us give the minister more time. We have said so much, we have divergent views, as
you have already seen. Now, how will you go into this – Moreover, even when you talk
about the changes and what have you, I think they are not relevant, because this information
53
was not brought by the minister. To me, it came through the “back door”. It was never
brought here so that it is passed on to the Committee – (Interruption)
MR KIBAALE WAMBI: Madam Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order to the hon.
Prof.. Nakiboneka Mwaka of Luwero District, who was educated on merit from some poor
school through affirmative action. Is she in order to mislead this House that the report that
was brought here to be discussed by this House and be enriched for the benefit of the quota
scheme was smuggled in through the back door when there is real evidence. This is what is
Bwino in Luganda.
There is documented evidence here dated 23 May 2002 and another one dated 1 April 2002
and then letters are here attached from the Minister himself urging members of the Committee
to expedite our input so that this year’s intake will be based on quota system. Is she in order
to allege that we brought this report through the back door?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, first of all, the Committee on Social
Services was approved by this Parliament early in the 7th Parliament. So, it is a Legitimate
Committee of this House and the Minister has admitted that he has been interacting with it on
this matter on our behalf. But what is most unfortunate is for the Member to accuse the
Speaker of bringing business here through the backdoor.
Hon. Member, you have accused the Speaker of bringing here business through the back door.
Please withdraw.
MRS MWAKA: Madam Speaker, I was misunderstood. Okay, I withdraw the word
“backdoor”. I just wanted a shortcut instead of lengthy explanation. What I am saying, usually
important issues are discussed between the Minister and the Committee and they come here
when they have agreed in principle but they differ in detail. Here at the beginning, there was
disagreement in principle. The paper – (Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable member, I have made my ruling. The work came
here through the right channels. Please, try to wind up.
PROF. MWAKA: Okay I leave it at that. (Interjection) But I said I withdraw. How many
times am I going to withdraw?
Madam Speaker, I am requesting that the ministry and Cabinet be given more time to
reconcile our divergent views. Otherwise, if this report is passed, I do not see how really we
can go along because we can see a number of loopholes, for example, rationalisation of the
fees structure. You have to consider the cost of living of particular schools. Definitely, what
you pay in Kampala can be 100 times more than what you pay in a rural area. That issue
definitely needs to be resolved.
I talked about whether it is by district or by school. Still that one has to be resolved.
The issue of the two principles: One getting two Es in the so-called bad districts, but he is
given room and somebody gets 3 Cs and is left out because he is purported to come from a
good district. Definitely, all these need reconciliation. When the Committee is sitting, we will
welcome the idea of some of us to be invited since we have been in the academic arena for
some 30 years. We can really try to see how we bridge the gap between what is proposed and
the Minister. I thank you.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, this matter has been spoken for and
against. I think let me call upon the chairperson to make some brief remarks and then the
Minister, and we dispose of it.
54
THE CHAIRPERSON, COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL SERVICES (Mrs Dorothy Hyuha):
Madam Speaker, in the first case, I want to thank the honourable members for their input
during the debate of this report. It will enrich the proposals of the Committee.
Madam Speaker, I wish once again to emphasise that what we are discussing was a matter
officially submitted to the Committee during the budget statement by the Minister of
Education. If we had moved very fast at that time, and if it was not controversial as you have
seen, we would have pronounced ourselves when we represented our report. That is why we
requested Parliament in our report that we differ the matter until we are ready. I am happy
that at long last the Committee has played its part and has brought the report as promised.
I also wish to emphasise, especially for the sake of those members who were saying that the
matter was not officially brought here, that it should have come through Cabinet. As hon.
Okulo Epak and hon. Benigna have indicated to those of you who have just come in the 7th
Parliament, this is not a new matter. I have been on this Committee since 1996 and this issue
came up during the chairmanship of hon. Bitamazire when I was also the secretary. I
commend hon. Benigna Mukiibi, Dr Kasirivu, hon. Ida Bikorwenda, former MP Bundibugyo,
hon. member from Kotido who is now LC V chairman, Kotido, and hon. Adome Lokwii, who
persistently said that we needed equity as far as financial resources for higher education was
concerned.
It is true, as hon. Okulo Epak has indicated, that when the hon. Minister joined this ministry,
this issue had already come up. He picked it up, and he even wrote a circular to the hon.
Members to make an input, and I remember quite a number of Members of Parliament
making contributions on this. Even if it was Cabinet to discuss, at the time, they brought two
important new policies to us, there is already a policy on the bursary scheme for the needy but
bright students, which was not controversial in the Committee. We pronounced ourselves on
this matter, and Government has gone ahead to even budget money and to pay for the needy
but bright students. If Government is denying that they did not bring it, then I strongly
suggest that even that one should be withdrawn because these two policies were submitted to
the Committee at the same time. The other one was not controversial.
We made a stand as a committee that since we had not agreed amongst ourselves, and it was a
big public concern, then we would better go to the House for more input. Those who were
arguing that Cabinet has not made input would still demand for a clarification. How did that
important policy where we have even voted money come to us? A policy matter we even
voted money for and they are even implementing while this one where were we needed more
consultation, they tell us “no, no, no, hold on; we are still to go to Cabinet”; it is a question of
consistency.
I am happy, hon. Members, you have brought light to this House, and I still stand that our
input, as we promised, is now a property of Parliament to take a decision. I beg to move.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of Government Business.
THE MINISTER, OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER (Prof.. Mondo Kagonyera):
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am standing in on behalf of the Leader of Government
Business; I am not the leader. First of all, I want to thank you, Madam, for allowing this
debate to go on albeit for so long. It is physiologically injurious for us to be standing here up
to this hour. Even the standard of debate, you could notice, had begun deteriorating,
especially, those who must sit here all the time.
Now, I want to thank the Members for candidly debating -(Interruption)
55
MR MWANDHA: Madam Speaker, first of all, who appointed hon. Mondo Kagonyera to
measure the standard of debate in this House? In any case, is he in order to impute that hon.
Members, who have been deliberating so diligently the whole day without even caring that
there is lunch, including the Speaker, that the debate had deteriorated? Is he in order?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, the debate has been vibrant, diligent,
focussed, especially under my chairmanship. Therefore, it has not degenerated and the
Minister is out of order. (Applause).
PROF.. KAGONYERA: Thank you, Madam for your wise leadership. But I want to assure
the House that as time went on, the amount of notes I was taking went down and down (Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, please, just respond.
MR ERESU: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it in order for the hon.
Kagonyera who is standing in for the Prime Minister of this country to go against your ruling
and proceed debating on what you have already ruled on?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have already made a ruling. Please Minister proceed to
respond.
PROF. KAGONYERA: Yes, you can hear, Madam Speaker. I would like to appeal to this
House -(Interjections)- Yes, I want to appeal to this House -(Interruption)
MR ATUBO: Madam Speaker, the hon. Member has admitted that the situation is
deteriorating in him, and you have really restrained him. Madam Speaker, I beg to move that
you apply rule 59 that the hon. Minister should not be heard anymore. (Laughter).
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, hon. Members, whereas the person in him may have
degenerated, he has an important message from the Leader of Government Business. So let
him deliver it.
PROF. KAGONYERA: You know, Madam, I really would like to appeal to my colleagues
to listen to me as hard as I listened to them. I think it is common decency to do that.
First of all, I would like to agree with the Minister of Education that this idea was not yet
approved Government policy. There are procedures we follow in the executive arm of
Government before anything can be called Government policy. There is no way the minister
could have come here and claimed that it was Government policy when it had not yet been
approved. The authority to make Government policy resides in the Cabinet. The Cabinet is
advisory to the President, and that is the procedure we follow.
So, if the Minister informs the House that that procedure has not taken place, it would be
good for this House to accept that. That is number one; it was not yet adopted as government
policy. The Minister was carrying out proper consultations, which have continued even in this
House. Therefore, I want to thank the hon. Members, in spite of what hon. Ben Wacha had
suggested, that they debated this, because we have been enriched.
You have seen the varied ideas about this issue and when the minister is developing his final
paper to submit to Cabinet, he will take maximum advantage of what the Members have said
in this House.
MR ERESU: I would like to be clarified by hon. Kagonyera. We have a report whose annex
3 is a letter from the minister, which was duly read, in this House. The chairperson of the
56
Committee went ahead and gave us a long list of their correspondences between the
Committee and the ministry. We took it as Members of this Parliament that the Cabinet had
already sat and has a position on this matter. That is why it was duly tabled for us for debate.
May I now be clarified, Madam Speaker. What is the meaning of having written all these
letters, of that correspondence between the Committee and Ministry of Education, having met
Members and the team from the Ministry of Education until they read this report and a new
position that the Leader of Government of Business is giving us?
Is he trying to suggest that the Ministry of Education all along has been acting outside the
Cabinet decision or the Ministry of Education operates outside the Cabinet position? Should
we therefore, think that the Minister of Education, who has signed this letter, hon. Dr Khiddu
Makubuya, Member of Parliament, is actually operating outside the Government of Uganda?
MR MWANDHA: Madam Speaker, considering that this matter has been considered by this
Committee as reported since the Sixth Parliament, how much longer should this Parliament
and the people of Uganda wait until Cabinet takes its time to decide on the matter and report
to this House?
PROF. KAGONYERA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Government recognises that there is
need for redress of past imbalances; there is no question about that. Government recognises
also that there is disparity in the standards of education in the districts of this country; there is
also no question about that.
Government recognizes that there has been a chronology of contacts between the Minister of
Education and Parliament. There might have been a fault here and there. There is no question
about that, and I had just said that from the contributions by Members of this House, some of
them varied and at times even debates getting heated. There were calls for even more
consultation; there is no question about that.
Therefore, I will conclude my contribution by saying that Government takes into account the
members contributions to the debate. Also, we do not want in any way to suggest that the
chairperson of the Committee and her Committee did the wrong thing; there is no question
about that. Government is enriched by their report. I thank you Madam Speaker.
MRS HYUHA: Madam Speaker, with due respect to the Leader of Government Business, I
appreciate his input, but I want him also to clarify. Now that we received guidelines on two
issues, the Bursary Scheme for the needy but bright at sub-county level, then the guidelines
on decentralised selection of Government sponsorship from the same Ministry.
We debated the guidelines on the Bursary Scheme for the Needy but bright. We made input.
It was not as controversial as this one. Could I be clarified; was that Cabinet’s decision now
that we do not have a machinery to investigate whether business before the Committee has
gone through Cabinet or not, whether that is Government position or not? We have even
voted money for this scheme. This should be the second Financial Year. Was that
Government position? Can we withdraw that one as well, Mr Prime Minister?
MR ARUMADRI: In view of what the chairperson of the Committee has just said, will it
now be necessary to get a certificate of clearance from Cabinet before this House debates
matters? (Laughter)
PROF. KAGONYERA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, I do appreciate the value
the chairperson puts in me. But I am not the Prime Minister. I am still the humble Minister
for General Duties.
57
Now, in fact she helped me answer the question she asked. She said there were two issues
which were brought here. One was less controversial than the other. That, even if I do not go
into the details, answers the question.
When a subject is not controversial - you see the reason why you have to go through details of
consultation- (Interruption)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order hon. Members. Leave one another to speak.
PROF. MONDO: Hon. Byamukama lectured to this House and I listened. Why doesn’t she
allow me to lecture to her also?
Now, I cannot recollect exactly what happened, but the truth is that there are some subjects
which are not that big or controversial which ministries are actually allowed to operationalise
like hon. Okulo Epak was saying. There are others of such a magnitude with financial
implications of such a manner that you will even have to get the Ministry of Finance to
approve what we are going to do.
What I cannot tell you, Madam Speaker and honourable members, is the process of what she
is referring to went through. But I think we will be in a position after consultation to come
back and answer that question.
Now, the hon. Member for Madi-Okolo: Yes, it is really very good that anything to be taken
very seriously by this House as a major policy issue has to be approved by Cabinet. If it is
not, then there is a bit of a problem because the important thing about Cabinet approval is
even collective responsibility and ownership of anything that comes to this House.
Therefore, I would like to agree with him that maybe it is prudent to get this information. I do
not want to deny this because –(Interruption)
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION (Ms Betty Akech): Madam
Speaker, thank you. The question of the bursary scheme was discussed by the Social Services
Committee and taken to Cabinet. Cabinet held very extensive discussions on it before we
were allowed to implement it. I was there and I defended it in Cabinet together with my
ministers, Madam Speaker. Thank you.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order.
MS AKECH: Madam Speaker, this one has not yet appeared before Cabinet, so therein lies
the problem. If you can see from the front bench, my colleagues are not on board. Normally,
as the Minister for General Duties has stated, these are major policy decisions and therefore
the consultation was supposed –(Interruption). It is a very major issue, from the outcry and
the debate it has generated in the press. My ministry actually noticed that we were
overzealous. Many of us were very excited because many of us would benefit from this quota
system if it could pass.
Many of us actually support a number of children or students at the University and we feel we
would be relieved if this quota system would pass. I would like to apologize to my colleagues
in Parliament that because of that overzealousness, we had to come to Parliament before
going to our very highest decision making position. But we did say that with this input, we
should now be able to go to Cabinet and have Cabinet’s stamp of approval so that we can
move forward. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Okay, honourable members, I put the question that the report of
the Sessional Committee on Social Services –(Interruption)
58
DR TUMWESIGYE: I thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me –(Interjection)- there is
no rule, which prevents a member of a committee from raising a point of procedure.
I want to know that since this is a matter of very significant public importance, would it be
okay for this House to rule on it when we do not have the right quorum?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I put the question that the report of the Sessional Committee on
Social Services on the Policy of Decentralized Selection of Government-Sponsored Students
to Public Universities be approved.
(Question put and agreed to.)
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, there is one other matter that we still
have to consider. I do not know whether the Chairperson of the Rules Committee is ready. It
will take about 30 minutes. I want to let you go as quickly as possible, but I think there are
matters we need to tie up.
PRESENTATION, CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF THE REPORT OF THE
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PRIVILEGES AND DISCIPLINE INTO
ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST HON. NANDALA MAFABI, HON. CAPT. GUMA
GUMISIRIZA, HON. LYDIA BALEMEZI, HON. APOLLO YERI OFWONO AND HON.
LT JAMES KINOBE
THE CHAIRPERSON, COMMITTEE ON RULES, PRIVILEGES AND DISCIPLINE
(Mr Ben Wacha): Thank you. I want you to direct me on the procedure that I should use,
taking into consideration rule 135(b). I have various interpretations. Some of my colleagues
believe that if I lay this report on the Table, it will suffice, while others want me to read it, but
the final decision is yours, Madam Speaker.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, in my view, this report should be read.
The members concerned should have time to read it and then we discuss it. I think it is to
soon for them to discuss it now when they have just received it. It would not be fair.
MR WACHA: Madam Speaker, I do not disagree with that interpretation. My only problem
is the discussion of the report because Rule 135 states as follows;
“It shall be the duty of the Committee on Rules, Privileges and Discipline by order of the
House (b) to consider any matter of discipline referred to it by the Speaker or the House including
the attendance of Members at sittings of Committees, and to report its findings to the House.”
I do not know whether reporting the findings will necessarily include or require discussion of
the report. Ours is a sort of semi-judicial body and having made our findings, I do not know
what it would entail if the House considered it again.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think that actually strengthens our position. Let it be laid on
the Table so that even the Speaker can internalise it together with the members concerned and
then we can take a decision on how to proceed.
MR BEN WACHA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Several matters were referred to the
Committee of Rules by the Speaker of Parliament. It is now my pleasure to lay before this
House the detailed findings of the Committee on Rules, Privileges and Discipline on a
complaint made by Mukwano Group of Companies against hon. Nathan Nandala Mafabi, in
the report referred to as hon. Mafabi, and hon. Capt. Guma Gumisiriza, in the report referred
to as hon. Guma.
59
I also want to lay on the Table the detailed findings of the committee's investigations into
allegations made against hon. Lt James Kinobe, which allegation and complaint was raised by
Mr Mpiira, the CAO of Luwero District Administration.
Madam Speaker, permit me to also lay on the Table detailed findings of allegations made
against hon. Capt. Guma Gumisiriza, by Mr Azit Hiran and Mr Ofwono Opondo on certain
matters. These are the detailed findings of the committee.
The report that I should have read before this House, but which I am going to lay on the Table
is the report of the Committee on Rules, Privileges and Discipline into allegations made
against hon. Nandala Mafabi, hon. Capt. Guma Gumisiriza, hon. Lydia Balemezi, hon. Apollo
Yeri Ofwono and hon. Lt James Kinobe. However, in order to allay certain fears not to waste
the time of the House, I want to inform you that allegations made against hon. Lydia
Balemezi and those against hon. Ofwono Yeri, were summarily considered by the committee
and they were dismissed.
Madam, permit me to lay on the table the committee's report on these findings.
LT KINOBE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have heard the chairperson listing all the papers
he intends to lay on the Table pertaining to the investigations. I, however, only heard
accusations raised by Mr Mpiira yet there was a very important document of allegations by
Mr Ofwono Opondo about me, made to the Committee on Presidential and Foreign Affairs.
These were actually communicated formally to the chairperson by the Speaker in his letter
dated 13 December 2002.
I suggest that, procedurally, those allegations should also be laid on the Table so that
members are privy to those allegations. Mr Mpiira's allegations do not raise anything about
bribery. It is Mr Ofwono Opondo who said that I solicited for a bribe and when I failed to get
it I asked for the road to be graded. So, I suggest that that report, which was passed on to this
committee after consideration by the Presidential and Foreign Affairs Committee, should also
be part of the documents that should be laid on the Table. Thank you.
MRS MUSUMBA: Madam Speaker, I expected the chairman of the committee to also lay on
the Table the transcribed information from the hearings of all the people that are being talked
about today. That should form a basis for background reading, as has been shown before
today, as part of the procedure of laying papers on the Table in such cases. Thank you.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Do the other honourable members wish to say anything
themselves? Does hon. Guma or hon. Nandala wish to say anything?
MR NANDALA MAFABI: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will say something. But let other
members speak first, then I will say something.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, you are not debating. Here is a procedural matter. I am
asking whether you are satisfied with the procedure so that we -(Interruption)
MR NANDALA MAFABI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This report of course deals with
the conduct of members. First of all the transcripts, as hon. Salaamu Musumba has put it,
should be laid on the Table.
Secondly, we are all represented by counsels of reputable standing. We request also that the
counsel’s submissions should be laid on the Table so that the members see them too. Thank
you. The reason I am asking this is that it will beef up our debate when it comes to discussing
this.
60
MR WACHA: On the issue of laying the transcripts on the Table, there is no problem. The
transcripts will be availed and since the House is going to stand over this matter, we will avail
the transcripts and whatever other documents accompanied the committee's decision. These
will be laid on the Table.
On the issue raised by hon. Kinobe, we took it that the report or the minutes of the Committee
on Presidential and Foreign Affairs formed part of the references. It was part of the references
that the Speaker sent to us. There was no evidence. They were only minutes of that committee
to which the allegations were made. So, we handled it as a reference. But if they enhance hon.
Kinobe's defence before this House, we will avail them to the House. There is no problem.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. So, the relevant evidence will be laid before the
House so that the members concerned and other members of the House have access to them.
Thank you.
Honourable members, I would like to bring this Session to a close and I begin by thanking
you very much for the work you have done during this Session. The House has passed many
important Bills and many motions. Although a bit of work still remains, it is not very much.
We have almost finished whatever business was available, except for the few that are not
completed yet.
However, one feature that has been glaring about our work is the absence of Private
Members’ Bills. Since the beginning of the Seventh Parliament, no member has yet presented
a Private Members’ Bill to the House. I would like to encourage all members here that in the
remaining three Sessions of this Parliament, please, make use of this facility. I know that you
will be enriched by the training that we are organising, especially in legislative drafting, and
also the other workshops and seminars that you have been undergoing to enhance your
oversight role in this House.
We have, as I said, conducted a lot of business but I do not want to read it all out because I
know members are tired. We have been here for a long time. We have had three Meetings, the
First Meeting from 11th June to 4th October 2002; the Second Meeting ran from the 12th of
November to 19th November 2002; the Third Meeting ran from the 12th February to today, the
16th of May 2003.
I will ask the Clerk to circulate the totality of the business that we have transacted, for each of
the members, so that you can keep track of what we have done. I would have read it out but it
is quite bulky. It will, however, be laid on the Table and the Clerk will circulate the rest to the
members of this House.
As members are aware, the work of Parliament is processed through Parliamentary
committees before it comes to the Plenary. We want to sincerely thank the chairpersons and
members of the various committees, both Standing and Sessional, for transacting work under
their jurisdiction so diligently and enabling this House in turn to expeditiously process the
work presented.
In the same vein, I want to thank Parliamentary Commissioners for the service they have
continued to render to the management of the institution and promotion of the welfare of the
members.
Honourable members, as we are closing the Second Session of the Seventh Parliament of
Uganda, there are two vacancies. You recall that the election of hon. Micheal Mumia as
Member of Parliament for Bubulo County East was nullified both by the High Court and
Court of Appeal. You also recall that at the end of last month this House lost hon. Basoga
61
Nsadhu, the Member of Parliament for Busiki County in Iganga District. It is hoped that these
vacancies will soon be filled so that the entire country is fully represented in this Parliament.
I have alluded to the business that is still pending. It is my belief that all the work that is
presented in Parliament has a purpose, which it is meant to serve. In my view, it does not
serve any purpose to allow such business to lapse at the end of the Session. Accordingly, I
wish to exercise my prerogative and save all the pending bills, motions, reports, petitions and
questions to be considered in the next Session.
Several committees have written to the Speaker requesting to stay behind and transact some
work during the recess. I have been advised that due to the budgetary constraints at the
moment, there are no funds to sustain the committees. Under the circumstances, the Speaker
is not yet in position to permit any committee to transact work during the recess. But since it
is a short recess, I would like to wish you a very good and well deserved rest with your
constituents and I would like now to prorogue the House by reading to you the Statutory
Instrument.
MRS OGWAL: Madam Speaker, before you pronounce the House prorogued, I would like
to request kindly that in the next session, we bring the Report on Election Violence as a
matter of urgency. More and more elections are taking place and people have continued to
complain of election violence. So, I would like to appeal to you to take that as a matter of
priority. We cannot rest in peace if this matter is not resolved. Thank you.
MR BAGUMA ISOKE: Madam Speaker, thank you. I speak as a Member of Parliament
representing the people of Buyanja County in Kibaale District. Early this week, you launched
a Strategic Investment and Development Plan for this Parliament, a process that started years
back and is now being modernised. Since that process started, I as an elected Member of
Parliament have not benefited from this development and capacity building. I am requesting
that in the next Session I too should benefit from this capacity building. (Applause)
I know I have spoken for others who have not been able to say so themselves. (Laughter).
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Commissioner Kazoora will specifically handle that particular
matter and ensure that all those who have not benefited are accorded the opportunity.
MAJ. KAZOORA: Madam Speaker, I will oblige to your instructions. However, I do not
know why the honourable member has been missing several capacity building workshops
when they are really open to everybody. We shall see what to do about that, as a commission.
I also stood up to appreciate and thank you for your appreciation of the work the honourable
members and chairpersons have done for this country. I also think it important that we place
on record our appreciation as Members of Parliament to the Rt. hon. Speaker and to you,
Madam, for the manner you have handled this House through this Session. We pray to God
that he gives you more courage and more understanding as we get into this hot debate in the
House. (Applause). Thank you.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Under Article 95 of the Constitution, the
Speaker is mandated to consult the President before Parliament is prorogued. I want to
confirm that the necessary consultations have been carried out as per the Constitution, and
both the Executive and ourselves are in agreement that the House be prorogued.
Just before I prorogue, let me also take the opportunity to thank our staff for the support
services, which have made our work very easy. We look forward to increased and better
services.
62
Honourable members, this is a proclamation by hon. Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi, Speaker of
the Parliament of the Republic of Uganda.
“Whereas Clause (3) of Article 95 of the Constitution provides that the Speaker may, after
consultation with the President prorogue Parliament by proclamation;
And whereas the necessary consultation with His Excellency the President has been carried
out and it has been agreed that Parliament be prorogued;
Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on the Speaker by Clause (3) of Article 95
of the Constitution, it is proclaimed that Parliament shall stand prorogued with effect from
today the 16th day of May 2003. Given under my hand at Parliament House, Kampala. Hon.
Edward Kiwanuka Ssekandi, Speaker of Parliament.”
You will be informed about when the next Session will begin again. Thank you very much,
honourable members, I wish you a good recess.
(The House rose at 4.17 p.m. and adjourned sine die.)
63