By Spy Uganda
The Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) is under intense parliamentary scrutiny after a heated hearing exposed deep divisions among commissioners, stalled human rights tribunal proceedings and allegations of financial mismanagement.
The concerns emerged before Parliament’s Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE), which is investigating the Commission’s governance and financial affairs.
Chaired by Muwada Nkunyingi, the committee questioned commissioners over inconsistencies in their earlier submissions and demanded clarity on who is responsible for the failure to convene human rights tribunals.
Nkunyingi warned the commissioners that their statements formed part of the official parliamentary record and must therefore be truthful and consistent.
“It is not casual submission and deliberation. It is Parliament of Uganda sitting and transacting,” he said.
At the centre of the dispute is the authority to convene and constitute UHRC tribunals.
Commissioner Shifrah Lukwago told the committee that she does not have the power to convene tribunal proceedings and maintained that position despite the committee’s renewed questioning.
She said she was ready to participate in hearings once the Chairperson convened the tribunal and issued a cause list.
Commissioner Simeo Muwanga Nsubuga similarly argued that individual commissioners cannot constitute themselves into tribunals, saying the process requires the Chairperson and designated commissioners.
Commissioner Crispin Kaheru also said he attends tribunal proceedings when they are properly constituted and accompanied by a cause list.
The dispute has significant implications because UHRC is a constitutional institution established under Article 51 of the Constitution and mandated to investigate human rights violations and promote respect for human rights.
Under Article 53, the Commission has powers similar to those of a court in specified proceedings, including summoning people and requiring the production of documents and records.
The Uganda Human Rights Commission Act further empowers the institution to investigate alleged human rights violations, visit places of detention, conduct human rights education and monitor Government’s compliance with international obligations.
The continued failure to hold tribunal hearings could therefore affect people seeking redress for alleged rights violations.
The parliamentary inquiry also uncovered allegations of broader administrative and financial problems within the Commission.
Commissioner Lamex Apitta Omara told COSASE that he and other commissioners had raised concerns with President Yoweri Museveni and the Inspectorate of Government.
According to Omara, the commissioners submitted a dossier to the President on February 12, 2026, outlining what they considered serious problems within the institution.
He said they later met the Inspectorate of Government on March 4, after which the Inspectorate opened an investigation file.
Omara further told the committee that on March 26, the Inspectorate wrote to the UHRC Secretary over allegations including maladministration, corruption and abuse of office.
He said the commissioners would submit copies of the dossier and related correspondence to COSASE.
Omara also alleged that approximately Shs1.4 billion provided to UHRC through a supplementary budget had been mismanaged.
However, he did not provide detailed evidence of the alleged misuse during the hearing, leaving the committee to examine financial records and audit findings before determining whether the claim is substantiated.
Commissioner Jacklet Atuhaire separately alleged that resources intended for the Commission’s core mandate, particularly tribunal proceedings, had been diverted to other activities.
She claimed that money was being spent on activities including foreign travel while tribunal operations remained largely inactive.
Atuhaire also accused the Commission’s leadership of failing to foster teamwork and alleged favouritism in the allocation of travel and other engagements.
She said commissioners eventually resorted to whistleblowing after their internal efforts failed to resolve the problems.
“We became whistleblowers on our own commission so that we can put these things to light,” she told the committee.
The commissioners’ accounts have, however, been challenged by UHRC Chairperson Mariam Wangadya, who rejected allegations that she deliberately sidelined other commissioners or sought to run the institution alone.
“All I can say is it’s not true that I always seek to work alone,” Wangadya said.
She nevertheless acknowledged that relations within the Commission have deteriorated.
“What I can say is currently we cannot pretend that the situation is perfect. The work environment is not very friendly,” she admitted.
Wangadya was also questioned over her meeting with leaders of opposition political parties without other commissioners.
She explained that she attended the meeting with UHRC staff and did not involve fellow commissioners because of the difficult working environment within the institution.
The divisions appear to extend to the Commission’s broader decision-making processes.
Nsubuga told COSASE that the Commission had not held a full meeting since March, a claim that, if confirmed, could raise further questions about the institution’s ability to discharge its statutory responsibilities.
The UHRC law provides for Commission meetings to be presided over by the Chairperson and envisages decisions being reached collectively, preferably through consensus.
At the same time, the Chairperson has significant responsibility for the direction and administration of the Commission, including supervision of the Secretary, while the Secretary oversees day-to-day administration and implementation of Commission decisions.
The conflicting accounts have consequently placed the spotlight on the relationship between the Chairperson, commissioners and administrative machinery.
COSASE is now expected to examine documentary evidence, including the alleged dossier submitted to the President, correspondence with the Inspectorate of Government, financial records and the Auditor General’s findings.
The committee is expected to resume its scrutiny on August 17.
The next hearing could therefore shift the controversy from competing accusations to documentary evidence.
For UHRC, the stakes are high. Its authority depends not only on its constitutional mandate to protect human rights but also on public confidence in its independence, financial accountability and institutional integrity.
The parliamentary inquiry will ultimately have to establish who is responsible for the stalled tribunals, whether public funds were properly accounted for and whether leadership and administrative failures have weakened the Commission.
For an institution whose mandate includes holding others accountable, COSASE’s inquiry presents an equally important test: whether the Uganda Human Rights Commission can demonstrate that it is capable of accounting for itself.
