The genesis of this court battle was with the date that was imprinted on the expulsion letter. If the alleged demonstration at the university happened on the 20th day of April 2016, why then would the letter for their expulsion be dated 19th April, a day before the actions that led to their expulsion? Had the university despite the demonstration already made up its mind to expel these two students? Was their fate already sealed? The university tried to convince court that the date was a typing error but court was not moved by her argument.
From the ruling of the justice Mutonyi Margaret “the manner in which the disciplinary process was handled was ruthless, unchristian, inhuman, degrading and lacking parental characteristic which is expected of student/lecturer relationship”.
The students were not given an opportunity to defend themselves. No witnesses according to the minutes of the disciplinary committee (DC) were presented. When inviting the parties to appear before the DC that sat on May 5 and 16 of 2016, a phone call was used, the reason for the call not spelt out clearly, yet natural justice demands that such summons be in writing. Some of the other students who took part in the demonstration were either suspended, or cautioned and asked to apologize for their actions. The judge concluded that there was procedural impropriety.
Students Drag University To Court
The outcome of events in 2016 led the students to run to court for a remedy. The two applicants Yasin Sentumbwe and Simon Ssemuwemba dragged UCU to court for judicial review (a sort of “audit of the legality of the decision-making process by public bodies”). In this case, they challenged the process that was used to arrive at a decision to expel them for challenging a 12.5 tuition increment. The case was first filed in Jinja High Court until last year when the case was transferred to the Mukono High Court.
[agg-ad id=”38892″ align=”none”]
They challenged their expulsion from the university claiming that they were expelled “prematurely, unlawfully, unjustly, unfairly and irrationally” when they were not accorded an opportunity to be heard, ignoring the principles of natural justice. They were expelled from the university by a recommendation of the student’s guild tribunal, and the DC for demonstrating and “behaving in a manner that damaged the good name and image of the university”. These organs according to the judge did not have the powers to recommend an expulsion and therefore acted “ultra vires”.
The university demonstration policy requires that before any demonstration is had, the students must first seek the consent of the Vice Chancellor in advance and also seek the permission of the police.
In their case, the students through their counsel Isaac K. Ssemakadde from Legal Aid Clinic, asked that the court quash the decision by the university to expel them from the campus, and be awarded damages (a monetary reward from court).
At some time during the continuance of the case, the students claim to have been offered a settlement fee to drop the case. They however maintained that the university needed to be “restrained” or else it would violate the laws of Uganda “suffocate academic freedom” and “create a dictatorial regime”. They wanted to proceed till their matter was determined by the court.
Judgment
“The wording of the expulsion letter and the date of the letter and the manner in which the proceedings were held and the decision made indeed portray material impropriety on the side of the university,” said the judge. She observes from the proceedings that the students were not even communicated their right of appeal.
She added that resolution by the DC was ultra vires for resolving that Yasin and Simon should be expelled instead of simply forwarding the matter to the Vice Chancellor to handle it and make his own decision instead of endorsing a recommendation to expel the students by bodies that did not have power to do so.
“It was erroneous and irrational for him (VC) to sign a letter communicating the decision of the first disciplinary body (the student’s tribunal),” said the judge.
The expulsion of applicants, according to the judge, was flawed in all fours in that “it was illegal, materially irregular and gravely improper”.
For this unprecedented case, the judge made a ruling on a number of points of law and issued an order of certiorari quashing the decision of UCU of expelling the students, an order prohibiting the university from enforcing the decision to expel the students, shs10 million general damages for each of the students as an atonement for the psychological, mental, and physical anguish they have suffered. Court also awarded costs for the application. The costs will be monetary compensation to the applicants for what they spent during the duration of the case.
It is a victory party
After the judge had delivered her ruling, the festive mood in and around the court room was intense. Untamable jubilation. “Victory belongs to Jesus” were some of the chants.
The students could not hold their excitement. The students were expectant of this victory. A band was hired and this marched with the expelled students, former classmates, friends, media and family in jubilation.
“It was a victory and it deserved a parre,” one of the students expressed.
One would say this band was a mockery for the university and yet filled with joy in the hearts of the victors.
Justice gives students and the university advice.
One of the things that guided the judge to decide the way she did was irregularities in the university laws in so far as they do not provide for the timeline for appeals, not clearly laying down minor and major offences and their penalties to guide the university organs to know what cases they can handle, and what penalties they can award.
The tribunal, according to the regulations, only handles minor non-academic offences, and major non-academic offences for the DC. There does not, however, exist a description of what these offences are and according to the words of the judge this is “dangerous because it will subject those provisions to different interpretations and prone to abuse.”
She went off the record to advise that if the university code of conduct that the students challenged was distributed to the current students, it should be amended as soon as possible and re-issued to the students removing those problem areas.
The judge then advised the students about indiscipline and said that the court should not be interpreted to condone student indiscipline. “Where a student has breached a code of conduct, proper disciplinary proceedings should be held while applying the rules of natural justice and equity following the laid out procedure in the regulations,” she said.
Impact of the case so far
Before the case was concluded, there was already a felt impact within the university.
- Regarding the tuition, the university has since then kept the tuition figures constant, to mean that what a student pays in his first year, would be the amount the he or she would pay until they finish their tenure at the university.
- Students have since then been required to sign matriculation oaths, swearing allegiance to the university. The oath suggests disciplinary action if it is violated.
- There is a lot of “second thought” considerations about the power law students should will. Before their expulsion, the applicants held offices of power. Yasin was a class representative, and Simon was the president of the UCU Law Society. Today, conspiracies within the university show that law students would not be allowed to take up influential positions at the university, almost justifying why up to four law students vying for the position of guild president last year lost out in vetting process. The students think that any of their colleagues in office now are weak willed and are under the control of the university administration.
The expelled students have not been engaged in any academic matters since their expulsion, however, after the ruling, they are expected to return to the university to complete their remaining periods. Yasin who was entering into his third year expects to join and complete his two years. Simon on the other hand hopes to complete his two semesters of fourth year.
You must be logged in to post a comment.