[wordads]
Denis Musanje
At the commencement of the 2025/2026 Uganda Premier League season, the Federation of Uganda Football Associations (FUFA) undertook what appeared to be a commendable initiative aimed at enhancing refereeing standards and strengthening performance monitoring. In pursuit of this objective, referees’ assessors effectively the “coaches” of match officials were subjected to competency evaluation tests to determine their readiness to elevate officiating standards.
Assessors play a role as critical to referees as coaches do to players. Their analytical insight, objectivity, and ability to communicate constructive feedback are essential in shaping refereeing performance. Without competent assessors, even the most promising referees risk stagnation.
The assessments, conducted at the FUFA Cranes Paradise Hotel in Kisasi, consisted of technical and analytical examinations commonly referred to as “trivia tests.” These involved video-based match scenarios drawn from televised FUFA competitions such as the Uganda Premier League and the FUFA Big League. Assessors were required to evaluate incidents determining, for instance, whether a challenge warranted a yellow or red card, or whether an offside offense had occurred while providing precise justification for their decisions. In essence, the tests measured match interpretation, decision-making accuracy, and analytical reasoning.
However, the results painted a troubling picture.
Reliable sources within the federation indicate that the initial pass mark was set at 10 out of 20. Under this standard, only two assessors Denis Batte and Catherine Nagadya successfully met the threshold. In response, the pass mark was subsequently lowered to 8 out of 20. Yet even with this adjustment, performance remained largely underwhelming, with only four assessors managing to score 9 out of 20.
The overall score distribution was as follows:
11 marks: 1 assessor
10 marks: 1 assessor
9 marks: 4 assessors
8 marks: 2 assessors
7 marks: 5 assessors
6 marks: 4 assessors
5 marks: 1 assessor
4 marks: 3 assessors
3 marks: 5 assessors
2 marks: 1 assessor
1 mark: 1 assessor
A significant majority scored below even the adjusted pass mark, raising serious concerns about the competence of those entrusted with guiding referees.
One might reasonably expect that those who performed best in these evaluations would be prioritized for high-stakes matches, particularly during the decisive stages of the season when refereeing errors tend to increase. Ironically and perhaps predictably the opposite appears to be the case. Assessors with lower scores have reportedly been assigned to the most critical fixtures.
Several explanations have emerged. One justification cited is the need for regional representation, ensuring that each match features an assessor from a specific locality. Another, more contentious rationale, is the perception among decision-makers that former referees who did not attain FIFA status are inherently less qualified to serve as assessors. This notion, however, is fundamentally flawed. Officiating at the FIFA level and assessing referees are distinct disciplines; the latter demands strong analytical ability, effective communication (particularly in English), and a deep understanding of the modern game.
More concerning still are reports that some assessors did not sit for the competency tests at all. Allegedly, their absence was due to involvement in political mobilization activities for a prominent Member of Parliament with significant influence in football circles. In what appears to be a troubling substitution of meritocracy with loyalty, such individuals are nonetheless considered for assessment roles.
The irony is difficult to ignore while referees continue to face criticism for inconsistent performances in Uganda’s top competitions, the very individuals tasked with mentoring and evaluating them may themselves lack the necessary competence or worse, bypass the system entirely.
The evaluation exercise was coordinated by Referees Manager Ssali Mashood and the FUFA Referees Standing Committee Chairman Brian Miiro Nsubuga, with examinations administered by Ali Tomusange Mulumba (a CAF Referees Committee member), David Davis Katabira, and Adipo Catherine.
If Ugandan football is to address the persistent issue of refereeing errors, attention must extend beyond the referees themselves to those responsible for their development. Until the standards applied to assessors match the expectations placed on referees, the cycle of inconsistency may well persist leaving the beautiful game entangled in avoidable controversy.
