Wangadya’s Remarks Renew Debate Over UHRC Appointments and Institutional Independence

By Peterson Hiirya.

The Chairperson of the Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC), Mariam Wangadya, has sparked fresh debate after delivering unusually candid remarks about how commissioners are appointed to the constitutional body, arguing that the process has increasingly prioritised political considerations over merit.

Speaking publicly about the Commission’s composition, Wangadya suggested that the UHRC has at times been treated as a destination for unsuccessful political candidates and individuals facing financial hardship, rather than being staffed with people chosen solely for their integrity, competence and commitment to defending human rights.

She urged those responsible for future appointments to select commissioners with unquestionable character and credibility, saying the institution’s effectiveness depends largely on the quality of its leadership.

According to Wangadya, some commissioners devote more energy to internal disputes, lobbying influential figures and pursuing personal interests than fulfilling the Commission’s constitutional mandate of promoting and protecting human rights.

Her comments have drawn attention because she herself was appointed through the same constitutional process she now questions. Critics argue that if the appointment system is fundamentally flawed, the concern extends beyond current commissioners and reflects broader challenges facing Uganda’s independent constitutional bodies.

The remarks also come as Wangadya faces allegations of financial mismanagement and abuse of office raised by three fellow commissioners—Simeo Nsubuga, Col (Rtd) Steven Basaliza, and Jacklet Atuhaire Rwabukurukuru.

In a petition submitted to President Yoweri Museveni and the Inspector General of Government (IGG), the commissioners accuse Wangadya of irregular salary enhancements, questionable procurement practices, improper staff promotions, mismanagement of donor funds and broader governance failures within the Commission.

Wangadya has rejected the allegations, maintaining that neither she nor the Commission is under investigation despite the IGG requesting documents as part of an inquiry into the complaints.

She has insisted that requests for information should not be interpreted as proof of wrongdoing, emphasizing that investigations do not amount to findings of guilt.

The timing of her remarks has nevertheless intensified public scrutiny of both her leadership and the Commission itself.

Observers note that by openly criticising the appointment process, Wangadya has also highlighted longstanding concerns about the independence and credibility of constitutional commissions.

The UHRC plays a central role in Uganda’s constitutional framework, investigating alleged human rights violations, inspecting detention facilities, educating the public on human rights and monitoring compliance with constitutional protections.

Analysts say the institution’s effectiveness depends not only on its legal mandate but also on the independence and integrity of those appointed to lead it.

Some commentators have also questioned Wangadya’s reference to individuals who rely on antiretroviral treatment while discussing appointments.

While many agreed with her broader argument against patronage in public appointments, others argued that linking HIV treatment to public service risked reinforcing stigma against people living with HIV.

The remarks have also attracted political reactions. National Unity Platform Secretary General David Lewis Rubongoya said Wangadya’s criticism of the institution contrasted with the Commission’s previous handling of complaints involving missing opposition supporters and alleged torture, issues that opposition leaders have long accused the UHRC of failing to address adequately.

Beyond the immediate controversy, Wangadya’s comments have reignited calls for reforms to the appointment process for independent constitutional commissions.

Governance advocates argue that public confidence in institutions such as the UHRC depends not only on constitutional safeguards but also on transparent, merit-based appointments that strengthen institutional independence and public trust.

As investigations into the allegations against Wangadya continue, her remarks have added momentum to a broader national conversation about governance, accountability and the future of Uganda’s constitutional institutions