Wangadya Says Museveni Did Not Accept Her Resignation

Wangadya explained that her resignation had not been accepted and therefore, in her view, there was no resignation to rescind.

“I don’t know whether the word ‘reinstate’ me is the right one, because the process was not completed. Maybe technically speaking, I did not resign, since my resignation was not accepted. So the question of reinstating me does not arise,” she said.

However, COSASE members pressed her to provide documentary evidence to resolve the dispute.

Committee chairperson Muwanda asked Wangadya whether she had obtained any written communication from the appointing authority confirming that she should remain in office.

Wangadya said the communication with the President had been personal and that she was uncomfortable appearing to exchange words with the committee over the matter.

Muwanda nevertheless directed her to provide the committee with a copy of the document in which she communicated her intention to resign.

Wangadya admitted that she did not have a copy with her but said she had copied the letter to the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs. She committed to submit a copy to the committee secretariat within 24 hours.

The committee also asked her to formally write to withdraw her resignation, given her position that she remains in office.

Wangadya agreed to do so, saying she would write the communication possibly on Tuesday.

The issue divided committee members. Kalungu West MP Joseph Ssewungu, who previously raised the matter on the floor of Parliament, insisted that Wangadya had formally tendered her resignation and that there was no written communication rescinding it.

Ssewungu argued that if an official is appointed in writing and subsequently resigns in writing, the withdrawal of that resignation should equally be documented.

“There is nothing in Parliament as alleged by Madam Mariam Wangadya that is a verbal communication,” Ssewungu said.

He warned that relying on verbal communication could force the committee to seek clarification directly from President Museveni.

Rubanda West MP Bruce Balaba Kabaasa, however, challenged Ssewungu’s interpretation, saying Wangadya’s communication was an intention to resign at a future date and therefore did not amount to an immediate resignation.

“The resignation we saw was not an instant resignation,” Kabaasa said, arguing that even if it had been accepted, Wangadya would still have remained in office until the date she had indicated.

Jinja West MP Timothy Batuwa Lusala urged the committee to focus on Wangadya’s own account, saying members had placed her on oath and should therefore take her testimony seriously.

He said the Attorney General’s opinion was not binding on Parliament, which has a responsibility to independently examine the matter and make its own findings.

Muwanda said the committee was concerned about the uncertainty surrounding the leadership of UHRC because of the sensitive constitutional mandate entrusted to the Commission.

“We don’t want to see disruption in your position,” Muwanda said, before asking Wangadya whether, irrespective of her conversation with the President, she still wanted to continue serving as chairperson.

The Attorney General, Sam Mayanja had previously told Parliament that Wangadya had submitted a notice of resignation and remained substantive chairperson until the process was concluded. 

The committee had previously been seeking answers over accountability issues raised in the Auditor General’s report, while commissioners had also raised concerns about the Commission’s ability to conduct some of its statutory functions. 

The latest development comes after Parliament had earlier moved to compel Wangadya’s appearance before COSASE following repeated failure to attend the committee’s proceedings. She was put on oath while giving her account to the committee.