A fresh political debate has erupted following the rejection of Victoria University Vice Chancellor Dr. Lawrence Muganga by Parliament’s Appointments Committee, with Kasambya County MP Daudi Kabanda insisting that the decision had nothing to do with ethnicity but rather concerns surrounding citizenship.
The controversy began shortly after reports emerged that Dr. Muganga had failed to secure approval for appointment as Minister of State for Internal Affairs. The development immediately sparked intense discussion on social media, with some commentators alleging that his rejection was linked to his Rwandan roots.
However, Kabanda has strongly dismissed that narrative, arguing that Parliament’s concerns centered on citizenship and passport-related issues rather than ethnic background.
In a statement posted on X, the legislator said claims that Dr. Muganga was rejected because he is a Munyarwanda were false, misleading, and potentially dangerous. He urged the public not to politicize ethnicity in matters involving legal and constitutional requirements.
According to Kabanda, the Appointments Committee allegedly established that Dr. Muganga possessed three passports from Uganda, Canada, and Rwanda. He claimed this became a major issue during the vetting process.
Kabanda further alleged that Dr. Muganga denied holding a Rwandan passport during questioning, but committee investigations reportedly reached a different conclusion. These claims have not been independently verified by Parliament.
The MP argued that the committee’s decision was based on the information presented during the vetting process and not on Dr. Muganga’s ethnic identity or ancestry.
To support his position, Kabanda pointed to several public officials of Banyarwanda heritage who have previously been approved by Parliament and continue to serve in government positions.
He specifically mentioned Minister of State for Water Aisha Ssekindi and State Minister Dianah Mutasingwa, arguing that both were approved despite their Banyarwanda background because they met the constitutional requirements for public office.
According to Kabanda, these examples demonstrate that ethnicity was not a factor in the committee’s decision regarding Dr. Muganga’s nomination.
The matter has nevertheless generated significant controversy, particularly among Dr. Muganga’s supporters, who believe he was unfairly treated during the vetting process.
Among those defending the academic is businessman and social commentator Frank Gashumba, a close associate of Dr. Muganga and chairman of the Abavandimwe Council.
Gashumba has publicly challenged the narrative advanced by Kabanda and others, insisting that the issues surrounding Muganga’s citizenship had already been addressed before the vetting process.
According to Gashumba, Dr. Muganga had taken steps to comply with Ugandan law by renouncing his Canadian citizenship after concerns were raised about dual citizenship.
He further claimed that the vetting process was progressing smoothly until questions allegedly emerged regarding a third citizenship linked to Rwanda.
Speaking after the vetting session, Dr. Muganga reportedly acknowledged holding Ugandan and Canadian citizenship at some point but denied claims that he was a citizen of Rwanda.
His denial has become one of the central issues in the ongoing debate, with supporters arguing that no conclusive evidence has been publicly presented to prove otherwise.
Political observers say the controversy highlights the increasingly sensitive nature of citizenship issues in Uganda, especially when individuals are being considered for senior government positions.
Others have warned against allowing the discussion to fuel ethnic tensions, emphasizing that legal questions about citizenship should be addressed through established constitutional and parliamentary procedures.
As the public debate continues, many Ugandans are waiting for Parliament’s Appointments Committee to provide a more detailed explanation regarding the reasons behind its decision. Until then, competing narratives from political leaders, supporters, and critics are likely to keep the issue firmly in the national spotlight.
