The Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) has raised questions about findings in a parliamentary report on the closure of human rights complaints, with its 2015 Complaints Handling Procedures Manual providing a basis for challenging aspects of the conclusions. The dispute follows an inquiry by Parliament’s Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE), chaired by Kyadondo East MP Muwada Nkunyingi, into matters highlighted in the Auditor General’s report for the financial year ended December 31, 2025.
At the centre of the controversy is the closure of complaints and the responsibility of officials involved in handling them, particularly Pauline Nansamba Mutumba, the Director of Complaints, Investigation and Legal Services. The COSASE report reportedly raises concerns about cases closed by the Commission and recommends action against officials, including Chairperson Mariam Wangadya. However, the Commission’s manual outlines procedures governing the receipt, investigation, closure and review of complaints, prompting questions about whether these provisions were adequately considered when the committee reached its conclusions.
When contacted yesterday for a comment on the findings concerning closed cases, a senior officer who preferred not to be named before the report is debated shared the Commission’s Human Rights Complaints Handling Manual with us, arguing that the finding was erroneous. The officer pointed to provisions detailing the responsibilities of regional officers and senior officials in deciding how complaints should be handled. The manual, according to this position, provides important context for assessing the disputed closures and determining where responsibility for particular decisions lies.
Section 6.5 of the manual allows Regional Human Rights Officers to close complaint files at any stage of the process, subject to the prescribed procedures. Complainants must be notified when a file is closed and informed of their right to appeal to the Director. Regional offices are also required to submit monthly reports explaining the complaints closed and the reasons for those decisions. Section 6.6 outlines the Director’s authority to approve recommendations, amend them or return files for further investigation, while Section 15.8 assigns the Director responsibilities for reviewing files, supervising complaints handling and monitoring the disposal of cases.
The manual further establishes internal mechanisms through which complainants can challenge decisions they consider unfair or incorrect. Under Section 13.1.1, certain decisions made by regional offices, including the closure of a file during investigations, may be appealed to the Director within the prescribed period, generally 21 days. The Director has 30 days to determine whether to allow the appeal and return the file for further processing or uphold the original decision. Section 13.1.2 provides for appeals to the Chairperson against certain administrative decisions made by the Director. These provisions demonstrate that the Commission has a structured review process, although the existence of such procedures does not automatically establish that every disputed decision was properly handled.
The parliamentary report has also attracted attention over recommendations concerning Wangadya’s personal responsibility for complaints reportedly closed irregularly and the proposed reopening of affected cases. An analysis of the findings questions whether individual cases were examined sufficiently to establish the circumstances of their closure and whether the applicable procedures were taken into account. It also raises concerns about the resources required to reopen cases amid an existing backlog. The central issue is whether the evidence supports the conclusions reached in each disputed case and whether responsibility has been assigned in accordance with the Commission’s established decision-making structure.
Beyond complaints management, the report reportedly recommends that Wangadya and other commissioners be retired in the public interest, citing concerns described by the committee as unjustified conflict. The inquiry’s scope has also become a subject of debate, with questions raised about whether certain administrative and legal matters fall within the committee’s mandate. Rule 187 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure provides for the examination of audited accounts and reports of statutory authorities and consideration of the Auditor General’s recommendations. The applicable legal framework also provides avenues for challenging certain Commission decisions, including recourse to the High Court, depending on the nature of the decision and the relevant legal requirements.
The COSASE findings are expected to be considered by Parliament alongside the report of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, setting the stage for further examination of the evidence and recommendations. The debate will be an opportunity to assess the specific complaints in question, the procedures followed by UHRC officials and the legal basis for any proposed action against individual officeholders. While parliamentary oversight is essential to public accountability, the Commission’s manual provides relevant context for understanding how complaints are handled and reviewed. Whether the disputed closures were justified or irregular will ultimately depend on the facts of individual cases, the evidence available and the rules applicable to each decision.
