Uneb court to combat examination malpractice: a double-edged sword

by · The Observer
Prof Celestino Obua

Examination malpractice remains a significant challenge that not only undermines the integrity of education but also entails moral and criminal implications.

Prof. Celestino Obua, the chairman of the Uganda National Examinations Board (Uneb), has proposed amending the Uneb Act to establish a specialized court for handling examination malpractice cases, a suggestion meriting thorough analysis, given its potential pros and cons.

One key advantage of a specialized court is the likelihood of a faster legal process. Overburdened regular courts often struggle with case backlogs, leading to delays in justice delivery. A dedicated court for examination malpractice could expedite these specific cases, ensuring timely resolution and justice.

Moreover, Uneb currently incurs significant legal expenses, including witness fees and court-related costs. A specialized court could mitigate these expenses by concentrating solely on malpractice cases, potentially reducing the financial strain on Uneb. Such a court would benefit from judges knowledgeable about the education system and malpractices, enhancing the quality of judicial decisions.

This expertise could lead to a deeper understanding of challenges within educational institutions, contributing to more effective legal proceedings.

However, this specialization may also lead to potential bias, with judges possibly developing a narrow focus on examination malpractice, possibly overlooking broader legal perspectives. This could compromise the fairness of the judicial system. Additionally, the creation and maintenance of a specialized court necessitate significant resources and funding, potentially diverting funds from other vital sectors like healthcare and infrastructure.

This necessitates a careful evaluation to ensure the advantages of such a court to justify the investment. The proposed court’s exclusive focus on examination malpractice could also mean other important legal issues may be neglected.

This limited scope might not be the optimal approach if the objective is to address broader systemic issues in the education sector or to combat corruption more comprehensively.

In conclusion, the proposal to establish a specialized court to address examination malpractice in Uganda requires a balanced consideration of its benefits and drawbacks. Factors such as the potential for expedited legal processes, cost efficiency, and judicial expertise must be weighed against the risks of bias, resource allocation challenges, and a narrow legal scope.

A deliberate and well-informed decision by the government and stakeholders is essential to ensure an effective strategy in combating examination malpractice.

Related Stories