By Karim Were
Dr. Winifred Kabumbuli, Makerere’s Dean of Students, has made a reasonable and responsible decision in enforcing the 2022 Guild Statute to keep guild campaigns virtual. I support her position, and here is why.
Makerere University has a documented and repeated history of violence during physical guild campaigns and elections, most notably the 2022 death of a student amid clashes. One only needs to look back at the history of Northcote Hall, later renamed Nsibirwa Hall, to understand the institution’s long struggle with politically charged violence.
Time and again, police and even the military have been required to restore order on the hill. When a parent who sent a child to university for an education instead receives a call to collect a body, it demands serious institutional reflection. That burden of making such a call often falls squarely on the Dean of Students.
Violence became a near-normal feature of guild elections at Makerere. It is therefore misleading to suggest that peaceful physical campaigns have ever been the norm.
The claim that open, in-person campaigns can proceed without incident ignores a consistent and troubling record. Against that backdrop, the argument for returning to physical campaigning without fundamental change does not hold.
Makerere University has a documented and repeated history of violence during physical guild campaigns and elections, most notably the 2022 death of a student amid clashes. One only needs to look back at the history of Northcote Hall, later renamed Nsibirwa Hall, to understand the institution’s long struggle with politically charged violence.
The dean had to make a decision that prioritizes the preservation of life, regardless of whose interests might be inconvenienced. It required boldness, clarity, and a willingness to depart from tradition in order to ensure that elections proceed without loss of life. In that regard, the shift to virtual campaigns is both practical and necessary.
Even after a temporary lifting of the ban in late 2025, events quickly reinforced the risks. The March 27, 2026 presidential debate descended into scuffles among supporters, forcing its suspension and a return to strict virtual rules—including the prohibition of rallies, concerts, and processions, even in off-campus areas such as Kikoni. Reintroducing physical campaigns under such conditions would amount to gambling with lives in the name of tradition.
That said, the decision is not beyond scrutiny. Criticism in a university setting is both healthy and necessary. Some students and candidates, including those aligned with Gracious Kadondi, have raised concerns about inconsistent enforcement, selectivity, and what they perceive as an overreach that limits student democracy and meaningful engagement.
Former guild leaders have also questioned why earlier off-campus activities were not addressed sooner. These are valid concerns. Questions about whether virtual campaigns reach all students effectively, whether they affect turnout or leadership quality, and whether the statute is applied fairly deserve open discussion. Such scrutiny can help ensure transparency and consistency.However, criticism that dismisses the safety rationale altogether—or treats past deaths as acceptable collateral—is neither fair nor responsible. The university has not banned ideas, debate, or voting. It has restricted physical gatherings that have repeatedly turned violent. Student democracy does not depend on rallies or concerts that put lives at risk; it depends on safe and inclusive participation.
Virtual platforms still allow for debates, mobilization, media engagement, and the exercise of the vote. Elections are still taking place, including those scheduled for April 9. To downplay the history of violence as insignificant or “just politics” is to ignore clear evidence.
At its core, this is a moral question. Is it acceptable for another parent to lose a child to election-related violence? The answer is unequivocally no. Parents entrust Makerere University with the safety and education of their children, not with exposing them to preventable harm. No appeal to “vibrant campus culture” or “tradition” can justify the loss of life over campaign activities.
The university has a duty of care to prevent foreseeable harm, especially when past incidents demonstrate that the risk is real. Virtual campaigns, while imperfect, are a necessary safeguard until a culture of non-violent political engagement is firmly established.
The tension between safeguarding students and preserving democratic practice is real. Universities should model democracy, not suppress it. But when physical campaigning repeatedly results in violence, adapting the format—as overwhelmed in the statute—is not an act of repression; it is responsible risk management.
Those advocating for a return to physical campaigns must demonstrate that such activities can occur without bloodshed. It is not enough to appeal to tradition while ignoring the consequences.
Safety and democracy are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, safety is what makes meaningful democratic participation possible. Dr. Winifred Kabumbuli’s decision reflects that reality. She should be commended for refusing to gamble with the lives of the students under her care.
