A Gap Analysis for the Accuracy and Reliability of Forensic Handwriting Comparisons towards Candidate Script Identification in Eswatini

Abstract

Judgement issues affect many aspects of our lives, including the future of our school-going children. The soundness of judgements made by examination administrators gets more serious in public high-stakes examinations where fairness on candidates is to be the most prized virtue. This paper seeks to ascertain the nature of the gap between current and desired practice of the Examinations Council of Eswatini (ECESWA) in resolving candidates’ handwriting-based issues. The curiosity is on what law in Eswatini recommends as best evidence of genuineness of disputed writing; on how Eswatini schools resolve candidate handwriting issues; and on how public examination bodies in the SADC region ensure that questioned writings are resolved accurately and reliably. The theory of the individuality of handwriting and the human factor theory underpinned the study. Standard marking and Forensic Document Examination protocols served as a reference for gauging ECESWA’s current practice. The inquiry involved a purposive sample of key informants, eight school management members and eight test development officials from SADC public examination bodies. The study revealed that ECESWA’s processes of judging disputed handwriting are aligned to a larger extent with international practice. The absence, however, of the relevant forensic skill within the adjudicators, created a loophole that defined the gap. The study recommends the capacitation of the jury or outsourcing of the service. On a more preventative note, the candidate scripts could be rebranded by ECESWA with candidates’ names prior to the examination day.