The lecturers’ association says Associate Professor Faisal Buyinza was removed from his departmental leadership position before being informed of the specific allegations and evidence against him, warning that the decision risks undermining staff rights and natural justice.
The Makerere University Academic Staff Association (MUASA) has challenged the university’s handling of sexual harassment allegations against Associate Professor Faisal Buyinza, accusing management of removing him from his departmental leadership position without following established procedures.
In an October 19, 2026 letter addressed to Acting Vice-Chancellor Professor Sarah N. Ssali, MUASA said the decision to direct Buyinza to step aside as Head of the Department of Economic Theory and Analysis was procedurally flawed because he had not first been informed of the specific allegations against him, the identities of his accusers or the evidence supporting their claims.
The association, which represents academic staff, said it supported investigations into allegations of sexual harassment, abuse of authority and gender-based violence but insisted that the rights of accused staff must be protected alongside those of complainants.
“MUASA strongly condemns sexual harassment, abuse of authority and gender-based violence in all their forms. Therefore, we are grateful for your attention to allegations of the same and hope that you will speedily give any victims the justice they deserve,” the letter, signed by association chairperson Dr Jude Ssempebwa and General Secretary Dr Sylvia Baluka Angubua, reads.
“However, MUASA condemns abuse of the rights of its members and other people just as strongly. The Association demands the rule of law and adherence to the principles of natural justice.”
The association said it took particular exception to the October 7 directive by Ssali requiring Buyinza to relinquish his departmental leadership responsibilities while a university-appointed committee investigates allegations against him.
MUASA argued that management should have disclosed the allegations and supporting evidence before taking a decision that could affect his professional standing.
“It is in this regard that we are writing to take strong exception to your decision to remove Prof. Buyinza from office before disclosing to him the specific allegations against him, the complainants accusing him, and the evidence on which their allegations stand—all basic elements of the prima facie case you need before you sanction a member of MUASA,” the letter states.
The association further argued that the decision contravened Section 5(d) of Makerere University’s Policy and Regulations Against Sexual Harassment, 2006, as amended.
It also questioned the composition of the investigation committee, saying its membership was gender-imbalanced in a way that could expose Buyinza to the risk of unconscious bias.
The six-member committee appointed by Ssali comprises Associate Professor Dorothy K. Okello, who chairs it, Professor Engineer Bainomugisha, Dr Christine Mbabazi Mpyangu, legal adviser Sumaiyah Nanyondo Sebuta, Dr Joelia Nasaka and Chief Human Resource Officer Deus T. Mujuni, who serves as secretary.
MUASA also disputed the legal basis for ordering Buyinza to step aside, arguing that the university did not formally interdict him under the applicable human resources procedures.
The association cited Section 9.8.2.3(1) of the Human Resources Manual, 2009, as amended, which provides for the Vice-Chancellor to interdict a member of staff subject to specified procedures.
“Although Section 9.8.2.3 (1) of the Human Resources Manual 2009 (as amended) gives the Vice-Chancellor powers to interdict a member of staff following specific procedures, you did not interdict Prof. Buyinza. You just required him to step aside from headship of his department and hand over the same, without specifying the law/policy under which you directed him to do so!” MUASA wrote.
It added that the decision was procedurally incorrect because an elected head of department could not be removed outside the provisions of Section 55 of the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act, 2001, as amended.
The association warned that the university’s handling of the matter could set a precedent under which academic staff might be removed from leadership positions without recourse to established rules.
“Crucially, the precedent you set exposes the members of MUASA to risk that in the future, you and/or others may casually remove them from office without recourse to relevant rules and procedures,” the letter states.
MUASA warns against trial by social media
The association also raised concerns about the influence of public pressure and social media on institutional investigations, arguing that allegations circulating online could push university administrators into making premature decisions.
It acknowledged that academic staff should be subjected to public scrutiny and held accountable but warned that social media could also be used to circulate false allegations, blackmail public officers and pressure supervisors into acting before establishing the facts.
“Being senior members of our country's public service and intelligentsia, the members of MUASA expect and accept the highest levels of scrutiny and demands for accountability from the people they serve and the general public,” the association said.
It added that social media had sometimes been abused to circulate “fictious allegations in bad faith, blackmail public officers, pressurise the supervisors of these officers to act prematurely and erratically in an effort to be seen to be responsive and, consequently, precipitate mob justice”.
MUASA also cited concerns about prolonged university investigations, saying some staff members had been left in professional uncertainty for extended periods, unable to secure promotions, pursue opportunities or resign while investigations remained unresolved.
The association argued that the consequences of such processes could extend beyond the investigation itself, affecting the careers and reputations of those involved.
“In these circumstances, MUASA shall not look the other way when its members are removed from office or otherwise exposed to professional and reputational damage simply because people have complained about them,” the letter states.
“Although every complaint against them must be given due attention, you have a duty to presume the accused innocent and to protect them as you do those complaining about them even when the allegations are sensitive or grave.”
The association maintained that any sanctions should follow disclosure of the allegations, preliminary investigations and the establishment of a prima facie case.
It further rejected the argument that describing Buyinza’s removal as an administrative measure rather than a disciplinary sanction was sufficient to address its concerns.
“It is not enough that you state that Prof. Buyinza's removal from office is an administrative measure not a disciplinary sanction. The truth is that the removal has exposed him to disrepute and cost him opportunities, albeit unfairly,” MUASA said.
The association also criticised what it described as the public fanfare surrounding the university’s statements on the case, arguing that such communication could prejudice the investigation and cause lasting damage if Buyinza is eventually cleared.
Association demands reversal of decision
MUASA has asked Ssali to address what it considers procedural violations, uphold Buyinza’s presumption of innocence and reverse the measures it says have effectively sanctioned him before the conclusion of the investigation.
The association said its intervention was not intended to shield academic staff from accountability or minimise the seriousness of sexual harassment allegations.
“We must emphasise that MUASA's position is not to shield its members from accountability or to diminish the seriousness of allegations against them. Rather, it is that the protection of complainants and the rights of accused persons are complementary obligations, not competing options for you to choose from,” the letter states.
It added: “Irrespective of their nature and gravity, allegations remain allegations and MUASA will never be censored or gagged from looking out for the rights of its members.”
The letter sets out four objectives: bringing the procedural concerns to the Vice-Chancellor’s attention, asking management to correct the alleged errors, seeking the reversal of the measures imposed on Buyinza and urging university administrators to avoid similar actions in future.
Makerere says action is administrative
In a circular to staff and students dated October 7, Ssali announced that Buyinza had been directed to step aside from the headship of the Department of Economic Theory and Analysis and any other leadership or administrative position he held at the university while the investigation proceeds.
The university said the decision was intended to protect the integrity of the investigation and those participating in it, including complainants and witnesses.
“These are administrative measures to protect the integrity of the investigation and those who take part in it. They are not a disciplinary sanction and are not a finding of guilt,” the circular states.
Makerere said the investigation committee would hear all complainants and witnesses and give Buyinza a full opportunity to respond to each allegation in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
The committee is expected to submit its report to the Vice-Chancellor by November 6, 2026. If it establishes that Buyinza has a case to answer, the matter will proceed to the university’s Appointments Board for a fair hearing under established procedures.
The university has also encouraged anyone with relevant information to come forward, promising confidentiality and protection against intimidation, victimisation or retaliation.
The case follows allegations raised publicly by Buyinza’s former wife, Hanifah Nakiryowa, who has accused him of sexual harassment and abusing his academic authority when she was a student at Makerere. Buyinza has denied the allegations.
Nakiryowa has also revived allegations relating to a December 2011 acid attack that left her seriously injured and also injured her young daughter. Buyinza was charged with attempted murder over the attack but denied the charge. The prosecution discontinued the case in July 2014, and he was discharged without a conviction.
The university has said the current internal investigation is separate from the earlier criminal proceedings and is intended to establish the facts under its safeguarding, sexual harassment and staff disciplinary frameworks.
MUASA’s letter now places the university’s decision-making process under scrutiny, with the association insisting that accountability for alleged misconduct must be pursued within the same legal and procedural framework that protects the rights of all parties.