Parliament’s Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs has recommended the disbandment and reconstitution of the Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC), citing prolonged institutional paralysis, alleged misconduct and the termination of more than 215 human rights complaints without hearings.
In a report presented to Parliament, the committee found that the Commission had not held a meeting since March 9, 2026, while its Tribunal had not sat since November 2025.
It attributed the paralysis to irreconcilable differences between chairperson Mariam Wangadya and three commissioners: Simeo Nsubuga, Stephen Basaliza and Jacklet Atuhaire Rwabukurukuru.
The committee said attempts to resolve the dispute had failed, arguing that “disbandment is necessary to restore public confidence” and pave the way for a new Commission.
It accused Wangadya and the three commissioners of incompetence, misbehaviour and misconduct, saying their conduct demonstrated “a preference for personal ego over the mandate of the Commission”.
The report’s most serious concern was the termination of more than 215 complaints between January 2023 and March 2026 on the sole decision of the chairperson, without the Commission sitting. Some complaints had reportedly been pending for more than 10 years.
“The Committee finds this position untenable of law, since such actions are inconsistent with the principles of natural justice, contravene Article 51(2) of the Constitution and section 11 of the Act and undermine the Commission’s quasi-judicial mandate,” the report states.
The committee argued that the unilateral termination of complaints denied complainants a fair hearing and effective remedies. It recommended that complaints dismissed without following the proper procedures be reinstated and determined on their merits.
It warned that the Commission’s failure to function effectively had serious consequences for people seeking justice, including denial of remedies for alleged rights violations, diminished public confidence, emotional and financial hardship, and the possible loss of reliable evidence.
The report also faulted the Commission for allegedly rejecting complaints from people considered criminals, convicts or “undeserving”.
“The Committee observes that this position cannot be justified since protection of human rights is not contingent upon criminal status,” the report states.
The committee emphasised that human rights protections apply regardless of a complainant’s criminal status.
The committee said the failure to hold meetings had enabled Wangadya to make decisions unilaterally, including terminating complaints, adjusting salaries and benefits, allocating vehicles and generators, recruiting and promoting staff, and terminating the contract of the former accounting officer.
It cited Article 51(2) of the Constitution and Section 11 of the UHRC Act, which provide for collective decision-making at meetings attended by the chairperson and at least three commissioners.
The report noted that the Attorney General had warned Wangadya in a letter dated May 9, 2022, that Commission decisions required the participation of other commissioners. The committee said the advice was allegedly not followed.
Wangadya told the committee that the complaints-handling manual allowed the chairperson to terminate complaints without involving other commissioners. She also cited inadequate funding as an obstacle to establishing an effective Tribunal.
She blamed the breakdown of meetings on hostile encounters, describing them as “chaotic and unmanageable” and likening them to a “war zone” in which she was insulted and abused.
However, the committee argued that she could still have convened meetings and secured a quorum with willing commissioners. It also faulted the three commissioners for failing to help resolve the dispute.
The three commissioners, in turn, accused Wangadya of systemic mismanagement, excluding them from official activities and international travel, and irregularly handling Commission funds and property.
They also alleged that money had been channelled to the personal accounts of the chairperson’s personal assistant.
Wangadya denied excluding the commissioners, saying travel opportunities depended on available budgets and the nature of official engagements. She also accused Atuhaire of cancelling Tribunal sessions after receiving allowances for herself and her support staff.
The committee did not establish criminal liability in relation to the allegations but found that resource allocation had created “perceptions of favouritism and inequity”.
It criticised spending on generators, foreign travel and vehicles at the expense of the Commission’s core human rights mandate and recommended an audit by the Auditor General.
The committee separately recommended the removal of Atuhaire and Nsubuga over their reported participation in partisan politics while serving as commissioners.
Atuhaire reportedly contested the 2026 general elections as an independent candidate for Sheema District Woman Representative, while Nsubuga participated in the National Resistance Movement primaries for Kassanda South.
The committee argued that commissioners exercising quasi-judicial powers must remain politically neutral. It recommended constitutional amendments to restrict participation in partisan and elective politics while in office.
Explaining why it believed the leadership dispute could not be resolved, the committee said: “The above conduct of the chairperson and commissioners illustrates persistent failures in leadership and collegiality, which has rendered the commission incapable of fulfilling its constitutional and statutory mandate.”
Its principal recommendation is that the Commission be “disbanded and reconstituted” under Articles 56 and 144(1)(b) and (c) of the Constitution, citing grounds of misbehaviour, misconduct and incompetence.
The recommendation does not mean the country’s human rights watchdog has already been dissolved. It is a proposal by the parliamentary committee to replace the current Commission through the applicable constitutional process.
The committee said urgent reconstitution was necessary to restore public confidence and enable the institution to resume its constitutional duty of investigating and resolving human rights complaints.