UHRC rocked by misconduct claims

The Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC), a pivotal constitutional body, is currently embroiled in serious allegations of financial misconduct, abuse of office, and maladministration. Three commissioners have formally petitioned President Yoweri Museveni and the Inspector General of Government (IGG), accusing the Chairperson, Mariam Fauzat Wangadya, of systemic mismanagement, including irregular National Social Security Fund (NSSF) contributions, unauthorized salary enhancements, and questionable procurement practices. The IGG has initiated investigations into these claims, which have cast a shadow over the UHRC's integrity and operational effectiveness. This development underscores critical challenges in public sector governance and accountability within Uganda’s independent institutions, raising concerns about the body's ability to fulfill its constitutional mandate amidst a perceived leadership vacuum.

Africa's leading legal intelligence platform, Briefly, reports on a significant legal and governance challenge facing a key Ugandan institution. The Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC), mandated to protect and promote human rights, finds itself at the centre of grave allegations of misconduct. Three of its commissioners – Simeo Nsubuga, Col. (Rtd) Steven Basaliza, and Jacklet Atuhaire Rwabukurukuru – have formally lodged petitions with President Yoweri Museveni and the Inspector General of Government (IGG), detailing a raft of accusations against the Commission's Chairperson, Mariam Fauzat Wangadya.

The allegations, which include financial impropriety, abuse of office, and maladministration, are outlined in documents dated February 12, 2026, to the President, and March 4, 2026, to the IGG. These claims are not merely internal disputes; they strike at the heart of public trust and the operational integrity of a constitutional body vital for upholding human rights in Uganda. The ensuing investigation by the IGG signals a critical juncture for the UHRC, potentially impacting its credibility and effectiveness in a nation with a history of human rights challenges. This article will delve into the legal framework, the specific allegations, and the broader implications for governance and accountability within Uganda's public sector.

The Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) was established under Article 51(1) of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, with its functions and powers further operationalized by the Uganda Human Rights Commission Act, Chapter 24. Its mandate is broad, encompassing the investigation of human rights violations, monitoring detention conditions, conducting human rights education, and recommending compensation for victims. Commissioners, including the Chairperson, are appointed by the President with the approval of Parliament and are expected to be individuals of high moral character and proven integrity. Decisions made by the UHRC under Article 53(2) of the Constitution carry the weight and enforceability of court judgments.

Complementing the UHRC's role in upholding rights and good governance is the Inspectorate of Government (IGG), an independent institution entrenched under Chapter 13 of the 1995 Constitution. The IGG's core mandate is to eliminate corruption, abuse of authority, and public office, while promoting adherence to the rule of law and good governance. Its extensive powers include investigating, causing investigations, arresting, prosecuting, and issuing orders and directions during inquiries, as well as accessing and searching premises and documents. The President of Uganda, as the Head of State and Government, is vested with executive authority under Article 99 of the Constitution and plays a crucial oversight role over statutory bodies, receiving petitions and initiating actions where necessary.

The allegations against UHRC Chairperson Mariam Fauzat Wangadya are multifaceted and touch upon fundamental principles of public finance management and ethical conduct. A key accusation revolves around irregular contributions to the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) for the Chairperson, who allegedly joined the Commission at an age making her ineligible for such contributions under public service guidelines. The petition claims that Wangadya instructed staff to continue these remittances until March 2025, knowingly benefiting from funds she was not entitled to, which, if proven, could constitute a serious breach of financial regulations and potentially an abuse of office.

Further compounding the financial misconduct claims is the alleged unilateral allocation of Shs 2 billion from a Shs 10.4 billion supplementary budget towards salary enhancements for herself, commissioners, and staff. The petitioners contend that this was done without the requisite approvals from Cabinet and Parliament, bypassing established procedures for public officials' remuneration. Such actions, if substantiated, would not only violate budgetary laws but also undermine the principles of transparency and accountability essential for public institutions. Additional allegations include the diversion of funds meant for civic education and monitoring activities for personal use, questionable procurement of two generators worth approximately Shs 160 million, and the unreturned use of a UN-donated vehicle by Commissioner Crispin Kaheru.

Beyond financial impropriety, the commissioners accuse Wangadya of systemic maladministration, including concentrating power, sidelining other commissioners and technical staff, and fostering a climate of fear and intimidation within the institution. This perceived breakdown in internal governance is particularly concerning for a human rights body, whose effectiveness relies heavily on collective decision-making, impartiality, and adherence to due process. The ongoing Inspectorate of Government (IGG) investigation, initiated on March 25, 2026, is a critical step towards addressing these claims. The IGG's powers to investigate, arrest, and prosecute cases involving corruption and abuse of office are vital in ensuring accountability within public institutions.

The situation has reportedly led to a leadership vacuum, with the Chairperson's prolonged absence and the subsequent delegation of duties to a commissioner who was also reportedly out of the country. This has allegedly resulted in stalled tribunal proceedings, impacting the UHRC's ability to address pending human rights complaints and fulfill its core mandate. The independence of the UHRC, enshrined in the Constitution, is crucial for its effectiveness, and any internal governance issues or allegations of misconduct can severely compromise its ability to operate without political influence or internal capture. The role of the whistleblowing commissioners, in this context, highlights the importance of internal checks and balances and the protection of those who expose wrongdoing within public service.

The allegations of misconduct within the Uganda Human Rights Commission represent a significant challenge to public sector integrity and the rule of law in Uganda. The ongoing investigation by the Inspectorate of Government is a critical test of the country's commitment to accountability, particularly within institutions tasked with safeguarding fundamental rights. The outcome of this probe will have far-reaching implications, not only for the individuals involved but also for the credibility and operational capacity of the UHRC itself.

Practitioners should closely monitor the IGG's findings and any subsequent legal proceedings, as they will undoubtedly inform future interpretations of public service ethics, financial accountability, and institutional governance. This case underscores the imperative for robust internal controls, transparent decision-making, and unwavering adherence to constitutional and statutory mandates within all public bodies. Restoring public confidence in the UHRC will require decisive action, demonstrating that no office is above scrutiny and that those entrusted with protecting human rights must themselves embody the highest standards of integrity and accountability.