A parliamentary debate on candidates who miss national examinations has reignited calls for reforms in Uganda’s examination system, with legislators questioning whether the law should deny learners another opportunity after circumstances beyond their control prevent them from sitting their papers.
The debate, which centred on thousands of candidates who registered and prepared for the Primary Leaving Examination (PLE), Uganda Certificate of Education (UCE) and Uganda Advanced Certificate of Education (UACE) but failed to sit the examinations, exposed the tension between examination regulations, financial considerations and the right to fairness in education.
At the centre of the discussion was a proposal by Kigulu County South MP Andrew Kiiza Kaluya for the Uganda National Examinations Board (UNEB) to consider a second sitting for candidates who miss examinations because of unavoidable circumstances.
Citing UNEB’s 2025 reports, Kaluya told Parliament that approximately 10,000 PLE candidates, 2,000 UCE candidates and 1,200 UACE candidates did not sit their examinations.
He said the affected learners missed the examinations for various reasons, including illness, accidents, childbirth, domestic violence and natural disasters.
Many, he noted, had already registered, paid examination fees and prepared for the examinations but were unable to participate because of circumstances beyond their control.
The figures raised questions about what happens to learners whose years of preparation are effectively disrupted by a single incident on examination day or during the examination period.
For a candidate who has spent years preparing for national examinations, missing the scheduled papers can mean losing an entire academic year, delaying progression to another level of education or facing additional financial pressure on families.
Government cites legal and financial limitations
However, Minister of State for Primary Education Phyllis Chemutai, who is also the Kapchorwa District Woman MP, told Parliament that introducing a general supplementary examination would not be practical or sustainable.
Chemutai said the UNEB Act does not provide for a second sitting for candidates who miss national examinations.
She further warned that introducing such an arrangement could expose the examination system to misuse and manipulation, while creating considerable additional expenditure for government.
The minister’s position placed the debate within a broader policy question: whether the integrity and administration of national examinations should take precedence over providing exceptional relief to learners who fail to sit examinations for legitimate reasons.
While government maintains that the existing legal framework does not permit a general second sitting, legislators questioned whether the law adequately accommodates exceptional circumstances.
Speaker recounts candidate who donated kidney to twin
The debate took a personal turn when Speaker of Parliament Jacob Oboth-Oboth questioned the fairness of laws that do not provide room for exceptional circumstances.
He recounted the case of a Senior Four candidate who reportedly missed national examinations after travelling to India to donate a kidney to his twin sibling.
The Speaker used the case to illustrate how rigid examination regulations could disadvantage learners who make extraordinary personal sacrifices or face emergencies that are beyond their control.
“Every law, which has no exception, is a sad one,” Oboth-Oboth said.
He challenged the Attorney General’s office over what he described as the absence of fairness and equity in the legal framework governing national examinations.
“Attorney General, you are presiding over laws which don’t have a room for fairness and equity,” he said.
The Speaker’s intervention shifted the discussion from whether UNEB could organise another examination sitting under the existing law to whether Parliament should reconsider the legislation itself.
Deputy Attorney General proposes one-month window
Deputy Attorney General Jackson Kafuuzi, who represents Kyaka South County, supported the possibility of changing the law to accommodate candidates who miss examinations.
Kafuuzi argued that legislation was not permanent and could be amended to address gaps identified during implementation.
He proposed establishing a specific period, possibly one month, within which candidates who fail to sit examinations for genuine reasons could be given another opportunity.
“The laws are not cast in stone. They can be amended,” Kafuuzi told Parliament.
He also pointed out that Parliament has the authority to provide for the financial implications of such an arrangement through the budgeting process.
His proposal offers a possible legislative pathway towards addressing the problem without necessarily introducing an unrestricted second examination sitting.
Responding to the suggestion, Oboth-Oboth emphasised that reform would have to begin with reviewing the existing legislation.
“So, we start with the law,” the Speaker said.
The wider question of fairness in education
The debate highlights a challenge facing examination authorities and education policymakers: how to protect the credibility of national examinations while ensuring that learners are not permanently disadvantaged by emergencies.
A supplementary examination arrangement would require clear eligibility criteria, verification of the circumstances leading to absence, examination security measures and adequate funding.
Without such safeguards, concerns about manipulation and unequal treatment could undermine the credibility of the national assessment system.
However, the absence of an exceptional mechanism also raises concerns about the consequences for learners whose inability to sit examinations has nothing to do with academic preparedness.
For thousands of candidates and their families, the difference between missing an examination and receiving another opportunity could determine whether a learner progresses to the next stage of education or waits another year.
The parliamentary debate has therefore opened the door to possible amendments to the UNEB Act, with legislators pushing for a framework that balances examination integrity, accountability and the circumstances of individual learners.
At stake is a fundamental question for Uganda’s education system: should a candidate who has prepared, registered and paid for national examinations lose an entire academic opportunity because of an emergency that could not have been anticipated or avoided?
