OPINION: MANUFACTURED FAILURE — The hour has come to expose LDC!


“…..law students must be taught not only to know the law but to live the law otherwise we shall be training wolves for society. In the same spirit, teachers of the law must not only teach the law but also communicate an experience otherwise it’s what constitutes the loss of humanity in alawyer”

Noting the above, LDC is an institution of law and must respect the law otherwise it will be engaging in education dictatorship.
The question that LDC must address is. Did it mark students’ scripts? Did LDC mark orals, IAs (Individual weekly assessment) did it mark final exams?

If LDC did mark these exams as required by law, why then has it failed to publish the breakdown of results as required under rule 11(3) of the rules for passing the bar course 2019?

It’s embarrassing that when students demand for their marks LDC describes them as noise markers and cry babies. Students have a right to demand for exam results and not just results but clean exam results.
There is enough evidence that LDC did not mark students’ exams.

Many students have testified that many PAs have disclosed to them that IA exams were not marked nor considered in results LDC purports to have released. Hereto attached are screenshots of some students in the WhatsApp group of corporate and commercial practice academic year 2019/2020. Showing how some lecturer told him that IAs were not marked.

LDC must come out clear on this. I am not inviting LDC to an argument, it must come out clear on this by publishing a breakdown of students’ marks.

In order to hide its ill motive, LDC went on to send results to individual emails of students. This was a move to curtail a concerted demand for accountability and transparency from students.

New screenshots claim LDC didn’t mark students results (PHOTO /Courtesy)

Rule 11(3) and rule 34(3) are couched in mandatory terms LDC must be reminded. Rule 34(3) provides that students results shall be published at LDC notice board or its website. until the same is amended, sending results to individual emails of students can’t amount to publication in light of the above rule. The director of LDC is not law, the above rules are applicable to him.

LDC’s practice cannot override the law, even then students of the previous academic years have been receiving a breakdown of their results. The sequence of LDC’s conduct has raised great suspicion in the students community that it didn’t mark their exams:

-releasing results after graduation

-releasing results that are very much in variance with the list that LDC had released on 2nd June 2021

-failing to release a breakdown of students marks as required by law.

-Swindling students’ money. All have contributed to this mistrust between students and LDC.

My interpretation of rule 11 and 34 is that graduation cannot precede results.
Mr. Othembi together with some senior lawyers owe duty to students and society and must not mislead the public.

They should not change the narrative in the LDC crisis to failure, the actual narrative is mismanagement of students marks.
Rule11(3) provides that results of second term and individual assessments (IAs) shall be published independently at the end of each term to track the academic performance of students. From the time students went to LDC they have never seen their results of Orals and IAs.

This provision is not directory its mandatory and non-adherence to the same is fatal.
LDC should not ride on the long-time silence of students to entrench injustice and education dictatorship.

Note: LDC lecturers should not loose consciousness in the face of law and fact, they must side with rule of law and justice not an institution. But from what I see, lecturers and some legal practitioners have gone missing when injustice is being inflicted on students in form of maintaining standards.

What is standard without justice? What standard are you maintaining through impunity and abuse of the law?
It is some senior lawyers that must undergo a pre-entry exam not law students, it beats my understanding when a senior lawyer reasons that there can be standard maintained through impunity and misma.

I should not be quoted out of context, I hold great respect for my seniors. I am simply calling upon them to interrogate the phenomenon at LDC objectively.

Students demand publication of a breakdown of results as required by law period nothing more. In this struggle I implore students to follow the law, strictly the law. They must not follow their feelings, legal practitioners, the media, LDC among others. They must follow the law, their conscience and justice.

Note: LDC lecturers must come out clear on this, they must not trade their conscience to an institution or money. They must side with accountability, transparency and justice.

I am very much disappointed with NTV for misdirecting the public on the issues at LDC. The issue at LDC is not about failure, students are complaining about the non-publication of results, the deliberate breach of rule 11(3) and rule 34(3) of the rules for passing the bar course 2019 by LDC, they are complaining about the impunity in a legal institution.

Students were asked to pay money for compulsory lawyers’ dinner which never took place neither was this money refunded. And thereafter LDC will move around convincing the public that it is the only clean institution in Uganda. Each student paid 200,000/= the director of LDC must account students where is this money because the dinner was not held.

In conclusion LDC has 3 DAYS to clear the raised issues before it is embarrassed, I have tried to exercise maximum civility. Publication of a breakdown of results is not at the discretion of LDC. It is a command of the law under rule 11(3) and rule 34(3) and the principles of common sense.


Cc: Director Law Development Centre
Cc: The Ministry of Education and Sports
Cc: Parliament of the Republic of Uganda
Cc: The Media

Click to comment

Dear our estimated reader, what is your take about this topic?

Most Popular

To Top