A-Level Certificate is not enough: Parliament deserves competence, not just certificates

_________________

OPINION

By Kiiza Matu

Every election season in Uganda brings the perennial spectacle of candidates being disqualified by the Electoral Commission for failing to meet the academic requirements for nomination. The Constitution stipulates that an aspirant for Member of Parliament must possess a minimum of an A-Level certificate or its equivalent. While this criterion was initially conceived to safeguard the intellectual calibre of the legislature, it has become increasingly apparent that the requirement is inadequate, antiquated, and divorced from the practical competencies demanded of contemporary parliamentary work.

The assumption that a minimum of an A-Level certificate alone guarantees legislative competence is profoundly flawed. Uganda’s educational architecture permits learners to specialise in vastly diverse subject combinations. A candidate may legitimately excel in subjects such as Arabic, Luganda, or Runyankore, earning top grades that reflect commendable scholastic discipline. Yet this academic achievement, however laudable, may not equip them with the communicative dexterity necessary to navigate the linguistic and procedural realities of Parliament.

All parliamentary proceedings, committee inquiries, budget interrogations, legislative drafting, motions, and plenary debate are conducted exclusively in English. It is disingenuous to pretend that a certificate devoid of demonstrated English proficiency ensures functional participation in such an environment.

This linguistic gap partly explains the conspicuous silence of some MPs who traverse an entire five-year term without contributing meaningfully to debate. Their muteness is not invariably a symptom of intellectual inadequacy; rather, it may reflect an acute deficit in the language through which national governance is articulated. A representative cannot effectively interrogate policy documents, analyse statutory instruments, or offer persuasive argumentation without a command of the language in which these texts are conceptualised.

Uganda must therefore adopt a more enlightened and rigorous approach: the introduction of a mandatory English language proficiency assessment for all parliamentary aspirants. Such a measure is neither punitive nor elitist. It is a pragmatic safeguard intended to ensure that those who seek to legislate on behalf of the nation possess the linguistic competence required to execute their mandate responsibly.

The situation becomes even more complex when candidates present academic qualifications from jurisdictions where English is not the language of instruction. Current practice recognises these certificates as equivalent to the Ugandan A-Level, yet this equivalence is superficial. Academic comparability does not translate into linguistic capability. To assume otherwise is to indulge in bureaucratic expediency at the expense of national legislative efficacy.

Some critics may argue that such reforms perpetuate colonial linguistic hierarchies. However, genuine decolonisation does not entail lowering standards or romanticising mediocrity. It requires constructing governance systems that reflect local realities and institutional demands. The incontrovertible truth is that the Parliament of Uganda conducts its business in the English language. Until the nation collectively resolves to legislate in multiple languages, representatives must possess proficiency in the language of the House.

The recurrent disqualification of candidates due to inadequate academic credentials should prompt a more profound national introspection. Uganda deserves a legislative assembly whose members do not merely occupy seats but actively articulate, interrogate, and influence policy. An updated, context-responsive qualification framework—one that integrates language competence alongside academic attainment would enhance the credibility, vibrancy, and intellectual robustness of Parliament.

It is time to transcend the complacency of outdated requirements and embrace a more sophisticated, competence-driven standard for political leadership. Only then can Uganda cultivate a Parliament capable of delivering informed, articulate, and transformative legislative stewardship.

The writer is a Medical Anthropologist and Doctoral Researcher at the University of Helsinki, Finland