SCANDALS: Former UHRC Top Boss Drops Financial Bombshell As Investigation Into Shs10.4BN Takes New Twist

By Swift Reporter

Parliament’s Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE) has ordered parliamentary police to protect former Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) Secretary and Accounting Officer Margaret Lucy Ejang as MPs intensify investigations into alleged financial and administrative irregularities at the rights body.

Ejang appeared before COSASE on Friday to account for financial and management decisions made during her 24-year tenure at the Commission after current UHRC officials failed to satisfactorily respond to a number of issues raised by the Auditor General.

The committee, chaired by Muwada Nkunyingi, said Ejang’s testimony was critical to establishing how public funds were managed during her tenure and to clarifying discrepancies identified in the Commission’s financial and performance records.

One of the issues under investigation is Shs70.41 million that was budgeted for an activity which, according to the Auditor General, was not implemented but was nevertheless reported as completed in UHRC’s quarterly and performance reports.

Current officials reportedly told the committee that the money was later used to purchase furniture but failed to provide documentary evidence to support the explanation.

Instead, they reportedly invited MPs to physically inspect the furniture.

COSASE rejected the explanation, insisting that expenditure of public funds must be backed by proper and verifiable documentation.

The inquiry is based partly on findings contained in the Auditor General’s audit of UHRC for the financial year ended June 2025.

Before appearing before the committee, Ejang had requested to testify separately from current UHRC officials, citing concerns over what she described as previous humiliation, abuse and psychological distress.

In a letter dated August 19, 2026, she told COSASE that she remained uncomfortable appearing alongside some officials because of the circumstances surrounding her departure from the Commission.

Ejang’s contract was terminated and she handed over office on April 9, 2026.

COSASE granted her request, allowing her to appear separately.

Her testimony subsequently opened a broader inquiry into an additional Shs10.4 billion supplementary allocation made to UHRC.

Parliamentary records indicate that the additional funding was intended to address operational shortfalls, including NSSF obligations, contractual allowances, fixed costs, complaints management, research and civic education.

However, Ejang told MPs that a significant portion of the money was ultimately absorbed by administrative and capital expenditure.

She said approximately Shs2 billion was allocated towards salary enhancement for the chairperson, commissioners and staff, while about Shs6 billion was spent on capital development, leaving roughly Shs2 billion for other activities.

COSASE is expected to verify the figures against approved budgets, payment records, Commission resolutions and other supporting documents.

Ejang also gave MPs an account of disagreements at the Commission over foreign travel and allowances.

She mentioned former UHRC Chairperson Mariam Wangadya, Commissioner Crispin Kaheru and Director of Complaints, Investigations and Legal Services Pauline Nansamba in connection with discussions or arrangements surrounding international travel.

According to Ejang, some commissioners complained about being excluded from foreign trips, while the travel budget was structured under the chairperson’s office as a cost centre.

She also told the committee that Wangadya sought a monthly Shs5 million honorarium for tribunal sittings between August 2025 and February 2026.

Ejang said she initially opposed the payment, arguing that commissioners were full-time officials who already received salaries and therefore should not receive additional payments for tribunal work.

She told MPs that the payment was eventually made to the chairperson, while other commissioners did not receive the same honorarium.

Ejang further disclosed that commissioners received Shs1.2 million each in welfare support, allegedly for items such as refreshments, despite the expenditure not being specifically provided for in the approved budget.

The committee is expected to establish whether the payments and budget reallocations complied with public financial management requirements.

One of the most significant revelations in Ejang’s testimony concerned funds budgeted under the chairperson’s office that she said were paid into accounts belonging to personal assistants.

Ejang told MPs that disagreements intensified after she and the Director of Finance began scrutinising financial requisitions from the chairperson’s office.

She said the Commission subsequently passed resolutions directing how some of the disputed funds should be handled.

According to her testimony, one resolution directed that money budgeted for activities under the chairperson’s office be paid into the account of the chairperson’s personal assistant.

Ejang stressed that the funds were not personal money for the chairperson but public resources intended for Commission activities, including stakeholder engagements.

She identified the first personal assistant as Pauline Nansamba Mutumba, who was later promoted to principal human rights officer and subsequently became Director of Complaints, Investigations and Legal Services.

After Mutumba’s promotion, Ejang said similar payments were made through another personal assistant, Nabete Mukunyu.

“I implemented it because it was a Commission resolution,” Ejang told MPs, while emphasising that the money remained public funds.

COSASE is expected to determine whether the resolutions were lawfully made, whether the expenditure was properly authorised and whether there is sufficient documentation showing that the money was ultimately used for its intended purposes.

Ejang also told the committee that all commissioners were present when the resolution concerning the payments was passed.

However, she said minutes relating to the decision, as well as those concerning the Shs5 million monthly honorarium, were not signed by Wangadya.

According to Ejang, approval of the minutes was repeatedly deferred during subsequent meetings, leaving the formal record of the decisions unresolved.

She further alleged that Wangadya sometimes declined to issue written requisitions after Commission resolutions had been passed, arguing that a Commission decision itself provided sufficient authority for the Accounting Officer to act.

Ejang said she retained WhatsApp messages in which she was repeatedly asked whether she had implemented the resolutions.

COSASE indicated that the messages could form part of the documentary evidence in the investigation.

The inquiry comes amid broader concerns about governance and leadership at UHRC.

In July, Parliament reported that COSASE had uncovered what it described as a breakdown in leadership at the Commission. MPs were told that no formal Commission meeting had been held since March 2026, while the tribunal system had also stalled.

The committee was further informed that tribunal sessions had last been held in December 2025 after the budget allocated for hearings was exhausted.

Wangadya has faced allegations and counter-allegations concerning the administration of the Commission. She has denied allegations of corruption and abuse of office and has previously attributed some of the controversy to internal disagreements and what she described as a smear campaign.

The allegations remain contested and have not been established as fact.

The committee is expected to continue questioning UHRC officials on governance, financial accountability, management and service delivery.

COSASE will have to reconcile Ejang’s testimony with Commission minutes, bank statements, payment vouchers, procurement records, budget documents, travel records, performance reports and the Auditor General’s findings.

The investigation could result in recommendations for recovery of funds, administrative action or referral to investigative or prosecutorial authorities if evidence of wrongdoing is established.

For UHRC, a constitutionally established institution mandated to promote and protect human rights, the investigation carries significance beyond the financial questions before Parliament.

At the centre of the inquiry is whether public funds allocated to the Commission were properly authorised, adequately documented and ultimately used for activities consistent with its mandate.

The committee’s findings are therefore expected to provide Parliament with a clearer picture of the financial and administrative decisions made at the Commission and whether corrective action is required.