Uganda Human Rights Commission has defended its procedures for handling and closing human rights complaints, citing provisions in its 2015 Complaints Handling Procedures Manual amid questions raised by Parliament’s Committee on Commissions, Statutory Authorities and State Enterprises (COSASE). The dispute follows the committee’s examination of issues highlighted in the Auditor General’s report for the financial year ended December 31, 2025, with the findings raising concerns about the Commission’s management of complaints and the accountability of officials involved in the process.
The parliamentary committee, chaired by Kyadondo East MP Muwada Nkunyingi, has reportedly recommended action concerning complaints considered to have been irregularly closed, alongside measures targeting the Commission’s leadership. However, the UHRC manual outlines the responsibilities and powers of officials involved in complaints management, raising questions about whether the established procedures were adequately considered in assessing the disputed cases. The debate has consequently shifted towards the rules governing complaint closures and the evidence required to establish individual responsibility.
When contacted yesterday for a comment on the findings concerning closed complaints, 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 highlighted provisions outlining how complaints may be closed and the internal mechanisms available to review such decisions. The manual provides an important reference for examining the Commission’s position, although determining whether the disputed cases were properly handled requires consideration of the facts surrounding each complaint.
Section 6.5 of the manual authorises Regional Human Rights Officers to close complaint files at different stages of the process, subject to established procedures. Complainants must be notified of the decision and informed of their right to appeal to the Director. Regional offices are also required to submit monthly reports explaining which complaints were closed and the reasons for doing so. Section 6.6 outlines the Director’s authority to approve recommendations, amend them or return files for further investigations or alternative action, while Section 15.8 details the Director’s responsibilities in supervising complaints management and reviewing files received from regional offices.
The manual also establishes procedures for complainants seeking to challenge decisions made during the handling of their cases. Under Section 13.1.1, certain decisions by regional offices, including the closure of files during investigations, may be appealed to the Director, generally within 21 days. The Director has 30 days to determine whether the appeal should be allowed or the original decision upheld. Section 13.1.2 provides for further appeals to the Chairperson against certain administrative decisions made by the Director. These provisions demonstrate that complaint closures form part of a structured administrative process with designated review mechanisms.
One of the major concerns surrounding the COSASE findings is the reported recommendation that the Commission’s Chairperson be held personally responsible for complaints considered to have been irregularly closed and that the affected files be reopened. Questions have emerged over whether the recommendations adequately distinguish between decisions made by regional officers and those handled or reviewed by senior officials. The potential reopening of cases has also raised concerns about the workload and resources required to revisit complaints amid existing institutional demands. However, the manual alone cannot establish that every closure was justified, making an examination of individual files necessary.
The report has also reportedly recommended the retirement of the Commission’s Chairperson and other commissioners in the public interest, prompting further questions about the legal requirements governing such action. 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 debate has raised questions about the extent to which the committee’s findings address financial accountability, administrative procedures and other legal matters. Applicable legal mechanisms also provide avenues for challenging certain Commission decisions, including recourse to the High Court where permitted by law.
As Parliament prepares to consider the COSASE report alongside the findings of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, attention is expected to focus on the evidence supporting the recommendations and the legal framework governing the Commission’s operations. The UHRC maintains that its complaints-handling procedures provide the necessary context for understanding how cases are closed and reviewed. While parliamentary oversight remains essential for accountability, the final assessment of the disputed complaints will depend on the evidence in each case, whether established procedures were followed and whether any breaches can be demonstrated.
