We Won’t Allow MUST Pharmacy Graduates to Practice Unless… Pharmaceutical Society Announces Way Forward after NCHE and Thomas Tayebwa Statements

The Pharmaceutical Society of Uganda (PSU) has offered to reconsider its decision to withdraw professional recognition of Mbarara University of Science and Technology’s (MUST) Bachelor of Pharmacy programme, but insists that the university must demonstrate compliance with professional training requirements before the dispute can be resolved, short of which its graduates may find trouble on their professional paths.

In a statement issued after remarks by Deputy Speaker of Parliament Thomas Tayebwa and a response from the National Council for Higher Education (NCHE), PSU Secretary Dr Stephen Lutoti said the controversy had exposed a fundamental misunderstanding of the respective responsibilities of the academic regulator and the professional body.

“The two statutory mandates are complementary, not mutually exclusive,” Lutoti said, defending the society’s decision communicated on October 19, 2026.

The dispute centres on whether NCHE accreditation alone should be sufficient to secure professional recognition for a pharmacy programme, or whether PSU can independently assess whether the university meets the standards required to train future pharmacists.

Tayebwa reportedly questioned PSU’s decision on the floor of Parliament, arguing that the programme’s accreditation by NCHE made the society’s action an interference with the higher education regulator’s mandate.

Lutoti acknowledged the intervention, saying, “Council is aware of a media clip of remarks attributed to the Deputy Speaker of Parliament on the floor of Parliament suggesting that, because the programme is accredited by the National Council for Higher Education (NCHE), PSU’s decision amounts to interference with NCHE’s mandate.”

He added that the society had also taken note of NCHE’s response to the controversy.

“PSU respects Parliament, the Office of the Deputy Speaker, NCHE and MUST. It nevertheless considers it necessary to correct an important misunderstanding of the law: accreditation of a university programme and professional eligibility to enter a regulated health profession are distinct questions.”

The Legal Battle Over Who Regulates Pharmacists

PSU’s defence rests on two laws that assign different responsibilities to the higher education regulator and the professional body.

Section 5 of the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act, Cap. 262, provides the statutory basis for NCHE’s responsibilities concerning accreditation, higher education standards and institutional monitoring.

“PSU neither claims nor purports to exercise the power to cancel NCHE accreditation, close a university, stop teaching, or invalidate a degree awarded by MUST,” Lutoti said.

The society instead relies on sections 8(1)(a) and (b), and 22(1), (2)(a), (c) and (d) of the Pharmacy and Drugs Act, Cap. 309, which it says give its council responsibilities concerning qualifications, professional membership pathways, qualifying examinations and the training of pharmacy students.

Registration to practise is governed by a further statutory process.

“Registration as a pharmacist is a further statutory process administered by the Pharmacy Board under section 13. An academic award is therefore not, by itself, a licence to practise pharmacy,” Lutoti said.

That distinction is central to the dispute. MUST can retain NCHE accreditation while questions remain about whether its training arrangements satisfy the requirements applicable to entry into the profession.

As Lutoti put it: “NCHE determines whether MUST may offer an accredited Bachelor of Pharmacy programme. PSU must independently consider whether the training and qualifications presented satisfy the requirements applicable to entry into the pharmacy profession.”

He added: “MUST may continue teaching under its NCHE accreditation; PSU cannot be compelled to disregard material professional-training deficiencies merely because that accreditation remains valid.”

The society’s position is that academic accreditation and professional recognition must be assessed separately, even when both processes concern the same university programme.

Why PSU Says It Can Revisit an Accredited Programme

PSU also rejected the argument that accreditation should prevent subsequent scrutiny of a programme’s staffing, leadership and teaching arrangements.

“An accreditation decision is based on an assessment made at a particular time and remains subject to NCHE’s own monitoring powers,” Lutoti said.

“Staffing, leadership, supervision, and teaching conditions can change after accreditation. A programme may retain a valid accreditation while material questions subsequently arise about compliance with professional training standards.”

The society argued that its responsibilities do not end when a programme receives accreditation or when it participates in consultations with NCHE.

“PSU’s responsibility is therefore continuing, not exhausted by its participation in an earlier accreditation process,” Lutoti said.

He added that previous consultations did not amount to a permanent commitment to recognise the programme regardless of subsequent developments.

“Its involvement in consultation with NCHE does not constitute an irrevocable undertaking to recognise all future training regardless of subsequent developments.”

PSU insists that its concerns are grounded in existing requirements rather than an attempt to create a rival academic accreditation system.

“They concern compliance with applicable professional-training and higher-education requirements, including relevant NCHE minimum standards for pharmacy education,” Lutoti said.

“The applicable text of those standards and the current facts must be assessed together, fairly and transparently.”

The Staffing Concerns Behind the MUST Decision

The society said its October 19 decision followed concerns about leadership and staffing in MUST’s Department of Pharmacy, a show-cause process and the response available to its council at the time.

“PSU’s public notice of 19 October 2026 followed concerns recorded by Council regarding leadership and staffing in MUST’s Department of Pharmacy, a show-cause process, and the response available to Council at the time,” Lutoti said.

He emphasised that the notice concerned professional recognition, not the university’s academic accreditation.

“The notice addresses PSU recognition for specified professional purposes; it does not purport to withdraw NCHE accreditation.”

However, developments at MUST after the decision could influence the outcome.

Lutoti said PSU had seen a letter dated October 20 from the university’s Vice Chancellor to NCHE reporting the appointment of Dr Jonans Tusiimire, a pharmacist, as Acting Head of the Department of Pharmacy, effective October 19.

The letter also reportedly indicated that recruitment and other corrective measures were being pursued.

“PSU welcomes steps directed at restoring and sustaining compliance,” Lutoti said.

But the society wants the reported changes verified rather than accepted solely on the strength of assurances.

“Those representations, together with the underlying appointment documents, staffing schedules, teaching arrangements and relevant minimum standards, should be promptly verified through an orderly engagement involving MUST, NCHE and PSU.”

The verification process would establish whether the department has addressed the deficiencies identified by the society and whether further corrective measures are necessary.

Students Must Not Become Casualties

The dispute has raised concerns about students whose studies and future professional careers could be affected by the withdrawal of recognition.

PSU acknowledged those concerns and said it would consider the circumstances of affected students rather than apply a blanket approach without examining the relevant facts.

“Students must not be made casualties of institutional disagreement,” Lutoti said.

He added: “Council will address the position of affected cohorts and periods of study on the basis of verified facts, applicable law, procedural fairness and proportionate transitional measures.”

The society also sought to distinguish its decision from the cancellation of academic qualifications.

“No student should understand the PSU notice as cancellation of a degree or NCHE accreditation,” Lutoti said.

However, students who complete their degrees must still satisfy the applicable professional requirements before they can practise independently.

“Completion of an academic degree does not dispense with the separate statutory requirements for PSU membership, professional qualifying processes and Pharmacy Board registration before lawful independent pharmacy practice,” he said.

PSU has not, in its statement, announced a final arrangement for every affected student cohort. Instead, it says their treatment should be determined through a process based on verified evidence, the applicable law and fair transitional measures.

The Way Forward

PSU has proposed urgent technical discussions with MUST and NCHE to determine whether the university meets the relevant requirements and what corrective action may still be necessary.

“Council invites urgent technical engagement with NCHE and MUST to verify compliance, identify any outstanding deficiency in staffing in the department of pharmacy which directly affects the quality of pharmacy graduates produced by the university, agree measurable corrective action and determine the appropriate professional-recognition position, including the treatment of students already in training,” Lutoti said.

The society has also left open the possibility of reversing its decision if the university demonstrates compliance.

“PSU remains ready to review its decision promptly when sufficient evidence establishes that the applicable requirements are met.”

Lutoti said the disagreement should not become a contest between institutions, but rather an opportunity to protect professional standards and the public.

“This is not a contest for institutional supremacy; it is a shared duty to safeguard pharmacy education, students and the Ugandan public.”

He concluded by reiterating that PSU was not seeking to overturn NCHE’s decision to accredit the programme.

“PSU reiterates that it does not challenge NCHE’s accreditation of the MUST Bachelor of Pharmacy programme. It asserts only the distinct responsibilities Parliament has entrusted to the professional regulator and its Council.”

“Both institutions can and should discharge their duties without one displacing the other.”

The statement was signed by Lutoti under the society’s motto, Per medicatum servium, which it translates as “With medicines, We serve.”

For MUST, the immediate challenge is to demonstrate that the reported appointment and other remedial measures adequately address PSU’s concerns. For NCHE and PSU, the proposed engagement offers a route to clarify their respective responsibilities without automatically invalidating the university’s accreditation or disregarding professional training requirements.

Until that process establishes whether the relevant standards have been met, PSU’s position remains that accreditation alone does not settle eligibility for professional recognition.

You can see the arguments by MUST and NCHE in their clash with Pharmaceutical Society of Uganda Here.