10 “In 2010 NCHE consulted UNEB on the ‘A’ Level status of the 1st respondent courtesy of a general inquiry on what constituted A level equivalence. The basis of NCHE’s issuance of a certificate of completion to the 1st respondent in 2010 was the decision by NCHE, UNEB and MOES that equated Mature Entry Certificates in Uganda to Pre-entry certificates in foreign jurisdictions, both of which equated to ‘A’ Level in Uganda, which decision UNEB purportedly confirmed. This position reconciles the contents of the2 letters from UNEB referred to earlier in this judgment in so far as it clarifies that indeed in 2010 no fresh inquiry was specifically made about the 1st respondent’s qualification, NCHE having opted for a more generalist approach for the equating of politicians academic documents”. The learned trial judge went on to discuss whether the general inquiry satisfied the legal requirements of section 4(6) about consultation and concluded that it did. With due respect to the learned judge, I think she misconstrued the provisions of the section. The section makes UNEB a component in equating the academic qualifications of each candidate. The certificate which is issued by the 3rd 20 respondent to each candidate has to state that it is issued in consultation with UNEB. A general inquiry in my view does not satisfy the requirements of the section. Moreover the document RN9 at page 320 seem to be mere policy proposals which UNEB was putting forward and there seems to be no concrete decision on its contents. Moreover policy decisions cannot tantamount to legal or statutory requirements. The testimony of Bukirwa to the effect that there was consultation on the totality of the 1st respondent’s qualifications cannot be true. the consultation must be actual. 15