For five months, according to Commissioner Simeo Nsubuga, the Uganda Human Rights Commission has not held a formal sitting.
That may sound like an internal administrative problem. It is not. The Commission is Uganda’s constitutional watchdog for human rights, the institution citizens are meant to turn to when they allege torture, unlawful detention, abuse by public officials or other violations.
When its commissioners cannot meet and make collective decisions, complaints may stall, institutional direction weakens and the public body charged with defending rights risks becoming consumed by its own leadership crisis.
Nsubuga says that is now the danger facing the Commission. In an interview, he reaffirmed his support for a petition accusing the UHRC leadership of corruption, fraud and abuse of office, insisting that he and two fellow commissioners would not withdraw the allegations.
The petitioners are Nsubuga, retired Col Steven Basaliza Alaali and Jacklet Atuhaire Rwabukurukuru.
“We stand by our petition. We are not adding anything, and we are not subtracting anything. What we want are investigations into the allegations we raised, including corruption, fraud and abuse of office within the Uganda Human Rights Commission,” Nsubuga said.
The commissioners petitioned President Yoweri Museveni and the Inspector General of Government earlier this year. Nsubuga said their claims were based on information obtained from within the Commission and were not intended to damage anyone’s reputation.
His argument is simple: the competing claims should be tested by institutions with the legal power to investigate, obtain records, interview witnesses and determine whether public money or authority was misused.
“We are simply asking investigators to establish the truth. If there is nothing wrong, that should come out. If there is wrongdoing, the law should take its course,” he said.
That distinction matters. Parliament can summon officials, demand explanations and scrutinize the Commission’s conduct, but criminal or administrative liability can only be established through a proper investigation and, where necessary, court proceedings.
FROM INTERNAL CONCERNS TO NATIONAL DISPUTE
According to Nsubuga, the commissioners first raised their concerns with the head of the State House Anti-Corruption Unit.
They were then advised to report the matter to the appointing authority, President Museveni, before submitting the same allegations to the IGG. The petitioners say they are ready to record statements and provide information whenever investigators call them.
Among the matters Nsubuga says require scrutiny are allegations concerning official funds, foreign travel and the use of government property. He said the information came from within the Commission, including officials based in regional offices.
The allegations have since drawn the attention of Parliament. Nsubuga welcomed scrutiny by the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises, commonly known as COSASE.
He said the petitioning commissioners had already appeared before some of the committees and would return if required.
“We appreciate Parliament for taking interest in this matter. We want the committees to continue doing their oversight role, but above all, we want the IGG and other anti-corruption agencies to complete their investigations,” he said.
For the public, the issue goes beyond a dispute among senior officials. The UHRC was created to hold other institutions accountable.
Allegations of mismanagement within the Commission, therefore, raise a deeper question: who protects the integrity of the body responsible for protecting everyone else’s rights? The conflict has become increasingly personal.
Nsubuga criticised recent comments attributed to UHRC chairperson Mariam Wangadya, saying he had no objection to her meeting President Museveni, but objected to statements he said targeted the petitioning commissioners.
He referred to remarks suggesting that some commissioners were seeking money for antiretroviral drugs, or ARVs, and that others were political failures. He described such comments as inappropriate for the head of a national human rights institution.
“The Uganda Human Rights Commission is mandated to protect the rights of all Ugandans, including people living with HIV. Making such remarks was unfortunate and should not have happened,” he said.
The significance of the ARV reference extends beyond the personalities involved. HIV status is sensitive personal information, and public comments that appear to stigmatize people living with HIV can undermine the principles of dignity and equality that the Commission is expected to defend.
However, when she appeared before a parliamentary committee last week, Wangadya apologised for the remarks she had made about the commissioners.
“I am apologising to the country for the language I used. I am sorry to those I offended, but please know I was pushed to the edge. The people who know me know that this is not my character,” she said.
Nsubuga, however, said the apology was insufficient. He argued that Wangadya should apologise publicly through the same platform she used to make the remarks.
“I heard her apologising before the parliamentary committee, but when you apologise, you should use the same platform you used when attacking people. Let her call a press conference in the same office and apologise to Ugandans for what she did,” Nsubuga said.
Nsubuga also rejected the suggestion that former MPs appointed to constitutional bodies should be regarded as failed politicians. He argued that many former legislators continue to serve effectively across government.
He cited his own record, saying he had spent 26 years in public service, including work with the Uganda Police Force, the African Union, the United Nations, Parliament and the UHRC.
“I have spent decades working on human rights issues both nationally and internationally. My experience speaks for itself,” he said.
RESIGNATION REPORTS DEEPEN UNCERTAINTY
The Commission’s leadership crisis has been complicated by reports that Wangadya resigned. Nsubuga said he was aware of a resignation letter but noted that the government had indicated that the President had not accepted it.
Until the appointing authority makes a final decision, the status of the chairperson and the direction of the Commission remains uncertain. Nsubuga said the matter now rests with Museveni and expressed confidence that the President would decide after considering the available facts.
“The matter is now before the appointing authority and other relevant institutions. We have confidence that, at the appropriate time, action will be taken,” he said.
But the institutional cost of delay is already visible, at least according to the commissioner. He said the UHRC had not held a formal sitting for about five months, leaving matters that require collective approval unresolved.
A constitutional commission does not function through individual officers alone. Some decisions require commissioners to sit together, deliberate and approve action. If those meetings stop, the consequences can reach people waiting for complaints to be considered, investigations to advance or institutional decisions to be made.
Nsubuga argued that normal operations could only be restored after the allegations were investigated and the responsible authorities took appropriate action. As the dispute has widened, Nsubuga says he has become the target of a coordinated campaign on social media.
He pointed to the circulation of audio recordings from his 2021 parliamentary campaign, which he said were old and unrelated to the petition.
“Those audios have nothing to do with the allegations we raised. They will not distract us from our call for investigations,” he said.
He described the attacks as an attempt to intimidate the commissioners and shift public attention away from the substance of their claims.
“We are senior public servants and we know our responsibilities. We remain ready to cooperate with investigators whenever required,” he added.
That contest over credibility is likely to shape public understanding of the case. In disputes involving powerful institutions, allegations are often answered not only with documents and evidence but also with attacks on the character, history or motives of the accusers.
The proper test, however, is not whether the petitioners are politically popular or personally flawless. It is whether the allegations can be supported by records, testimony and lawful investigation.
WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
The petition is now before the President, Parliament and anti-corruption institutions. The next meaningful step is not another public exchange between commissioners, but an investigation capable of establishing what happened.
That process should answer several questions. Were public funds mishandled? Was government property misused? Were official travel and other expenditures properly authorised? Did anyone abuse their office? And has the leadership dispute impaired the Commission’s ability to perform its constitutional duties?