The appointment of PSU president Dr Jonans Tusiimire to head the department at the centre of the dispute raises serious questions about potential conflicts of interest, regulatory authority and accountability.
The controversy surrounding Mbarara University of Science and Technology’s (MUST) Bachelor of Pharmacy programme has moved beyond a disagreement over staffing. It has become a test of regulatory accountability, institutional independence and the protection of students caught between competing authorities.
The Pharmaceutical Society of Uganda (PSU) withdrew recognition of the programme on October 19, citing inadequate staffing, the appointment of a non-pharmacist to head the Department of Pharmacy in an acting capacity, and the university’s failure to respond to a show-cause notice issued on September 10.
Yet, in a development that demands closer scrutiny, MUST appointed Dr Jonans Tusiimire, the president of PSU, as acting head of the same department for three months, effective October 19.
Tusiimire is a senior lecturer and deputy dean of MUST’s Faculty of Health Sciences. His professional qualifications may make him suitable for the university position, but his simultaneous leadership of the institution that withdrew recognition of the programme raises legitimate questions about a potential conflict of interest.
The timing is particularly striking. Did MUST independently arrive at the decision to appoint Tusiimire as part of its efforts to address the staffing gap, or did PSU’s withdrawal of recognition effectively force the university’s hand? Was his appointment planned before the withdrawal, or was it a direct response to the professional body’s decision?
These are questions that should not be answered through speculation, political pressure or institutional self-defence. They require an independent and transparent investigation.
There is no evidence presented so far to establish that PSU deliberately engineered the circumstances to secure Tusiimire’s appointment. Equally, the sequence of events is sufficiently unusual to warrant scrutiny. The public deserves to know whether the process was above board and whether safeguards exist to prevent his dual roles from compromising impartiality.
The second, equally important question concerns the respective mandates of PSU and the National Council for Higher Education (NCHE).
Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa told Parliament that NCHE had confirmed MUST’s pharmacy programme remained accredited for another four years. This appears to conflict with PSU’s decision to withdraw recognition, although academic accreditation and professional recognition are not necessarily the same thing.
A university programme may satisfy the requirements for academic accreditation while still facing questions about whether its training meets the standards required by a professional regulator. The critical issue is what the law specifically empowers each institution to do, and what legal consequences follow from their respective decisions.
Parliament has rightly directed the Minister of Education and Sports and the Attorney General to clarify the legal position. Their statement, expected on Thursday, October 22, must go beyond explaining that the two institutions have different responsibilities. It should identify the precise statutory provisions governing accreditation, professional recognition, inspections, sanctions and the protection of students already enrolled in the programme.
If PSU has the legal authority to withdraw professional recognition, it must demonstrate that the decision followed the law, established procedures and defensible professional standards. If its powers do not extend to suspending an academic programme, that boundary must be clearly established.
Neither a professional body nor a university should be allowed to operate beyond its lawful mandate.
The investigation must also establish whether MUST received and properly considered the September 10 show-cause notice, why PSU says the university failed to respond, and whether the society gave adequate consideration to the circumstances surrounding the staffing gap.
MUST says its former head of department resigned to take up another position and that recruitment had been delayed by funding and administrative processes. It also says the Ministry of Public Service cleared it to recruit or promote academic staff on October 14.
These explanations must be tested against documentary evidence, not accepted or dismissed on the strength of statements alone.
Most importantly, investigators must examine whether Tusiimire participated in, influenced or stands to influence any PSU deliberations concerning MUST’s compliance with the conditions that prompted the withdrawal. The society should disclose the relevant decision-making process and demonstrate how any actual or potential conflict of interest is being managed.
The government should establish an independent fact-finding mechanism involving the relevant regulatory and legal authorities, with clear terms of reference and a defined reporting timeline. Its findings should be made public.
Where evidence establishes abuse of office, improper influence, procedural violations or other misconduct, those responsible must be held accountable, regardless of their institutional standing.
Students must not become collateral damage in a dispute between powerful institutions. Their fees, years of study and professional futures are at stake. Government must urgently clarify the status of their training, examinations, internships and eligibility for registration, while ensuring that any corrective measures comply with the law.
The objective should not be to vindicate PSU or MUST. It should be to establish the truth, enforce the law and protect the integrity of pharmacy education.
This controversy cannot be settled merely by appointing a new acting head of department. Uganda needs answers about who has the authority to make which decisions, whether that authority was exercised properly, and whether anyone used institutional power for an improper purpose.
Where the law was followed, the evidence should demonstrate it. Where it was abused, accountability must follow.