A letter purportedly from Makerere University indicating that an academic’s application for promotion to the rank of Lecturer was rejected for failing to meet the institution’s biometric attendance threshold has sparked widespread debate on social media.
The letter, dated July 10, 2026, states that the applicant’s promotion request, submitted on January 7, 2025, was declined because they did not satisfy the university’s required biometric attendance threshold.
“This is to notify you that your application for promotion to the rank of Lecturer dated 07th January 2025 was rejected for failure to meet the required Biometrics attendance threshold,” the letter reads.
The document is addressed to an academic in Makerere University’s Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering under the College of Engineering, Design, Art and Technology (CEDAT). It bears what appears to be the signature of the Chief Human Resource Officer, Deus Tayari Mujuni, and an official Human Resource stamp.
The letter has since circulated widely online, prompting mixed reactions from the public. While some argued that staff should be held accountable to attendance policies like any other employees, others questioned whether biometric records should determine academic promotions, which have traditionally been based on teaching performance, research output, publications and community service.
The development comes just days after Makerere University announced sweeping digital reforms aimed at modernising its operations, including the rollout of electronic transcripts and certificates and the expansion of digital academic services.
The circulating letter has also renewed conversations about the university’s biometric attendance system, which was introduced to improve accountability among staff but has previously attracted criticism from some employees who argue that academic work often extends beyond physical presence on campus.
As of publication, Makerere University had not publicly commented on the authenticity of the circulating letter or clarified whether biometric attendance is now a formal criterion for academic promotions.
Campus Bee could not independently verify the authenticity of the document or the circumstances surrounding the reported promotion decision.
If confirmed, the case is likely to fuel further debate over how universities should balance staff accountability with the unique nature of academic work, where teaching, research, supervision and scholarly engagement frequently take place beyond the confines of an office.
