With less than 48 hours to the Makerere University Guild presidential election, the race has taken a historic and dramatic turn, with two female candidates Hannah Tumukunde Karema and Gracious Kadondi dominating the contest and redefining the tone of student politics at Uganda’s premier institution.
The contest is not only about leadership, but about competing visions of reform, fairness, and the future of student power at Makerere. Karema’s campaign, built around the slogan “Rebooting the Ivory Tower,” frames the university as a malfunctioning system in urgent need of a reset.
Using the symbolism of the iconic Main Building, Karema argues that Makerere’s administrative structures are plagued by inefficiencies, broken promises, and outdated policies.
“Makerereans are not young children to be lied to,” Karema says, criticizing management for unfulfilled pledges such as the return of physical campaigns. She calls for firm accountability, even suggesting the need to “invoke ancestral disciplinary measures” to curb what she describes as endless deceit.
At the heart of her agenda is student welfare. Karema highlights the disparity in government allowances, noting that Makerere students survive on just Shs 3,000 per day, far below what is needed in Kampala.
She proposes increasing this to Shs 15,500, arguing that failure to invest in students risks producing poorly nurtured future leaders. “You’ll find that students at Makerere were being paid to actually be students,” she explains, contrasting the situation with other institutions where students receive significantly higher daily support despite lower living costs.
She also raises concern over the controversial red gown issue, where freshers paid Shs 21,160 but have not received the gowns for three years.
“These gowns are our prestigious emblem,” she notes, demanding either their immediate distribution or a refund to students.
On the issue of the rising cost of living, Karema points to a growing hunger crisis on campus, blaming high food prices on expensive rents charged to vendors by the university’s commercial arm.
She proposes establishing a subsidised food court to make meals more affordable. Her campaign further addresses what she terms “political suffocation,” criticising the 2022 Guild Statute for restricting student freedoms.
She opposes the ban on first-year students contesting and the limitations on political association, arguing that these measures have created “inexperienced leaders who can easily dance to the tunes of management.”
Academically, Karema promises sweeping reforms, including the introduction of supplementary exams for finalists who would otherwise wait an extra year, and the full implementation of the 60 per cent tuition policy.
“Education is a right, and it should not only be accessible but also affordable for all,” she says, criticising the current system where students must sometimes plead with the administration just to sit exams.
Facing her is Kadondi, a former guild vice president who brings experience and a combative stance toward the administration. Her campaign centres on restoring student voices and confronting what she describes as systemic suppression.
“When a frog jumps out of the water and tells you the crocodile is dead, you believe it because it has been closer to the truth,” Kadondi says, using a metaphor to explain her insider understanding of the administration.
“I got to understand why our voices are being suppressed.” Kadondi argues that many past leaders have failed because they chose to “bid for the administration” rather than stand firmly for students.
“We need to fight for what truly belongs to the students,” she insists.
Her welfare agenda includes restructuring the students’ work scheme, which currently accommodates only about 50 students, to expand opportunities while ensuring that the work assigned preserves students’ dignity.
She also proposes involving students in campus business bidding processes to improve livelihoods. On political participation, Kadondi strongly opposes restrictions introduced under the Guild Statute, including barring first-year students from contesting and enforcing online campaigns.
“You cannot tell me that someone shares posters and wins an election,” she argues. “We need to see how vocal and aggressive they can be.”
She warns that virtual campaigns prevent students from properly assessing candidates, leading to weaker leadership and declining standards. Kadondi also advocates for academic reforms, particularly flexible supplementary exam policies for finalists facing genuine challenges, and calls for firm implementation of tuition policies such as the 60 per cent and 90 per cent waivers.
“No student should have to be on their knees or in bed with the administration to sit exams,” she says.
As Karema and Kadondi battle it out for the top student leadership seat, former guild presidential aspirants have weighed in, raising critical questions about the independence and competence of the Electoral Commission.
Ismael Basalirwa, a third-year law student who contested in the previous elections under the National Unity Platform (NUP) and emerged third, has openly criticized the structure of the electoral body, arguing that it lacks autonomy.
“The Electoral Commission is under the Dean of Students, which means it doesn’t have the ultimate power over this election,” Basalirwa said, calling for “robust reforms” to strengthen its independence.
He further expressed concern about the experience of those entrusted with managing the elections, noting that many commissioners are students with limited leadership exposure and are often intimidated by the administration.
“Many of them fear the office of the dean because it is their boss. Yet this position is very crucial for the entire university and needs people with great experience,” he added.
Basalirwa warned that the stakes of the election go beyond Makerere, describing it as “an election for the entire Uganda,” given the university’s role in shaping national leadership.
He also pointed to inconsistencies in the electoral process, including complaints from students whose names reportedly disappear from nomination lists, attributing this to inexperience within the commission.
In addition, he criticised the handling of campaign activities, arguing that the office of the dean of students should provide clear guidelines on physical campaigns rather than allowing candidates to invest heavily in preparations only for events to be abruptly cancelled.
“It is unfair to let candidates secure venues and pay for artists, only to later stop them, leading to losses,” he said.
His remarks come in the wake of heightened tensions over cancelled campaign events, including the controversial Nalika Lane “Street Jam,” which had been cleared by police before being called off following a university directive banning all physical campaigns.
Students warn about the online system of voting
Onesimus Atuhaire, a third-year Journalism and Communication student, believes the online system is a step in the right direction but warns that its implementation has exposed major gaps.
“There’s nothing wrong with the online voting system. In fact, I think it’s the best system,” Atuhaire says, pointing to its ability to allow students to vote from anywhere, especially those working or engaged in business away from campus.
However, he criticizes the university for extending the online approach to campaigns, describing it as “difficult and vague,” and arguing that suppressing physical campaigns undermines meaningful engagement between candidates and voters.
Atuhaire also raises concerns about transparency, noting that the Electoral Commission appears to have exclusive control over vote tallying.
“It lacks good transparency because only the EC knows the votes. You never know, maybe they can tamper with them,” he says.
To address this, he proposes a more open system where students can track votes in real time.
“The best system would be one where voters can access results online and see votes as they are being counted,” he suggests, adding that such visibility would build trust in the process.
Echoing similar concerns, Alijuna Muhammad warns that the system, if not improved, risks undermining democratic principles.
“It compromises the principles of transparency, which are very vital for a free and fair electoral process,” he states.
These concerns come at a time when the university administration has strictly enforced online campaigns, citing security risks and electoral regulations a move that has intensified debate over whether the system is enabling inclusivity or restricting democratic participation.
As students prepare to cast their votes, the question remains whether the digital system will deliver a credible outcome or further fuel doubts about the integrity of the election.
