Walukaga’s Mature Age Entry certificate was a valid document for his nomination

The Electoral Commission (EC) recently ejected Mathias Walukaga from the Busiro East parliamentary race.

It argued that the academic document he relied on for his nomination did not meet the minimum academic qualification set out under Section 4 (1)(c) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA), having been expired before nomination day.

The queried academic document was a Mature Age Entry certificate (MAEC) obtained from the Islamic University in Uganda and dully equated by the National Council for Higher Education (NCHE).

By and large, the EC’s main argument was that by the time these documents were submitted for certification and later to the EC for nomination, the same had long expired on June 23, 2025, and could not be given a new lease of life by NCHE. Mature Age Entry is an accepted pathway for persons above 25 years to access university education.

The system essentially bypasses the traditional A-level requirements by taking special exams allowing the person to pursue degrees, and effectively equating their mature age entry certificate to an A-Level qualification.

Thus, a MAEC, as opposed to a degree, is what is treated as the equivalent to A-level (Senior Six) and is one of the alternative entry qualifications for university admission. The certificate is, however, valid for two years from the date of issue and requires passing specific NCHE-approved exams (50 per cent of the aptitude/general knowledge) as provided for under Para 9(b) of the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Legal Notice No. 12 of 2015.

In their wisdom and having nominated Walukaga using the NCHE documents, the commission reversed its own decision, saying the candidate did not meet the minimum academic formal qualifications required of a member of parliament in total disregard to the guidance of NCHE, which had equated the results as being equivalent to advanced level.

My interpretation is that the Mature Age Entry certificate only becomes stale if it is not used to join university within a period of two years. We are told that having obtained the MAEC, Walukaga immediately applied and was admitted as a student at St Lawerence University within the prescribed two-year grace period inscribed on the certificate.

If it is true that Walukaga complied with the two-year condition, it goes without saying that his Mature Age Entry certificate remained valid to date and can be used at any time as a minimum qualification to contest as a member of parliament.

After all, the same had been verified and confirmed by the National Council for Higher Education. Please note that the EC did not say a MAEC cannot be used as an equivalent of A-levels certificate but it said the act of NCHE in equating an expired certificate was irregular and could not revive an expired document.

The only question now that stands before court is whether or not the MAEC was expired and, therefore, could not be used for Walukaga’s nomination. Electoral Commission chairman Simon Byabakama now finds himself placed between a rock and a hard place; his unfortunate decision will now be scrutinized by a junior member of the bench at the level of a High court judge.

The High court’s investigation will be confined within the boundaries of ascertaining whether the National Council acted ultra vires and whether, in exercising its discretionary power, it acted corruptly or in bad faith or whether the Council considered alien and irrelevant matters, in which case the National Council’s act would be a nullity.

But how did we get here? We all know that district registrars are employees of the Electoral Commission and thus their actions or inactions fall squarely on their employer.

In the absence of an established tribunal to handle post- nomination complaints on behalf of the EC, the commission is not the most competent entity to handle or even determine the complaints as it is a potential respondent in the same dispute.

I am mindful of Section 15 of the Electoral Commission Act, which allows the commission to rectify its own mistakes but must not do so as if they were a competent court because they are not and are glaringly conflicted.

That explains why the commission’s decision confirming or rejecting an irregularity (like it is in the Walukaga case) is not subjected to a judicial review but an appeal to the High court. By asking an aggrieved person to seek redress from the offender is self-defeating and certainly offends the well-entrenched principles of natural justice.

Even if the commission had the powers toentertain the complaints, they ought to do so well aware that the process can be abused by self-seekers. Besides, what would the commission do if none of its members was a judge as was the case during the tenure of Badru Kiggundu?

Is this commission even aware that an aggrieved party not willing to appeal can claim a refund of nomination fees and all the costs incidental thereto under Section 15(1) of the Act?

The decision of the EC not only punches holes in the institution of IUIU as far as MAEC is concerned but also undermines the NCHE as an institution, almost declaring it incompetent for having equated a MAEC that was already expired in June 2025.

The decision also declares the EC Registrar at Wakiso as being unfit for his office and perhaps should be fired. A few years ago, the EC used to have what it called ‘pre-nomination certificates,’ where they would do a background check on candidates who had expressed interest in contesting for political office.

This was stopped for unknown reasons. These days, the EC only learns of hidden irregularities way after a candidate has been nominated and allowed to start campaigning. It is less than three weeks to polling day but the EC is still dillydallying with some unresolved disputes.

The delay to deliver their verdict subjects the candidates to emotional torture and denies them a chance to remain in the field, not knowing whether or not the outcome will be in their favour or not. This is not acceptable.

Matters are made worse that Section 15 of the Electoral Commission Act does not give the commission timelines within which they are supposed to determine petitions filed before them.

This impugned law allowing the EC to review complaints submitted at any time and at any stage is occasioning an injustice and must be amended and in the alternative, the EC must immediately institute an independent tribunal to handle such disputes.

The writer is a commentator on political, legal and social issues

wadroger@yahoo.ca