Makerere staff reject biometric check-in system

The staff members are under the Makerere University Academic Association (Muasa), Makerere University Administrative Staff Association (MASA), and the National Union of Education Institutions (NUEI). Their collective objections were conveyed in a written response to Nawangwe after his memo regarding the system's introduction was leaked at the end of the previous month.

Previously, Muasa had declared their resistance to the adoption of the Biometric Attendance Management System, citing alternative and more effective methods for monitoring academic staff performance and productivity.

A key grievance voiced by the staff was the perceived lack of adequate consultation and stakeholder engagement prior to initiating the biometric system. They argued that this move could significantly hinder their ability to fulfill the university's mission.

Nawangwe, in his communication, raised concerns about indiscipline among some Makerere staff, such as a lack of adherence to official schedules and the creation of individual timetables with little consideration for student convenience.

He pointed out that some staff were reportedly teaching at other universities or working in other organizations with stricter disciplinary standards. He cited instances of colleagues failing to complete the full curriculum, with one even setting an exam for the entire syllabus after delivering only one lecture out of the expected fifteen, which the students rightfully rejected.

Nawangwe explained that these malpractices were not unique to Makerere and existed in many universities worldwide. To address these issues, he argued that biometric access systems were a global norm in universities, and Makerere was one of the few major international universities yet to implement such a system. Nawangwe firmly stated that the biometric system would be implemented as planned and cautioned Muasa against misleading staff into defiance.

However, the staff associations chose not to heed Nawangwe's warning. In their response, signed by the three associations, they argued that universities globally utilized electronic access systems, allowing staff to access offices and work at their convenience, in contrast to the proposed requirement of clocking in at 8:00 a.m. and clocking out at 5:00 p.m.

They expressed the need for flexibility to engage in research both within the office and in the field and community, which would be hindered by the obligation to be physically present during the specified hours.

They questioned how staff could conduct research when the university demanded they be in the office from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.