Former intelligence officer Gen. David Sejusa has spoken out in defence of former Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) Chairperson Mariam Wangandya, saying her recent actions should not be dismissed as irrational behavior but rather examined in light of the circumstances that may have surrounded her resignation.
Commenting on the growing debate over Wangandya’s departure from office, Sejusa said he finds it difficult to believe that a public servant with her track record would suddenly act without reason. Instead, he argued that there could be deeper factors that influenced her actions in the period leading up to her exit.
According to Sejusa, Wangandya has built a distinguished career over many years, earning a reputation for professionalism, competence, and sound judgment. He pointed to her previous service as Deputy Inspector General of Government (IGG), her legal career, and her work with the Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA) as evidence of a person who has long been respected in public life.
For that reason, Sejusa said the public should be asking what may have changed and whether there were pressures that pushed her into a difficult position. He noted that people familiar with Wangandya’s career know her as someone who has consistently demonstrated discipline and professionalism.
The retired general particularly questioned the circumstances surrounding Wangandya’s public criticism involving President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni. He said she would have understood the attention and consequences that could follow such remarks, making it important to examine what may have motivated her actions.
Sejusa also referred to Wangandya’s claims that she and members of her family had received threats. He questioned who could have been behind those alleged threats and whether they may have contributed to the challenges she was facing at the time.
In his view, Wangandya’s conduct does not reflect someone who is mentally unstable. Rather, he said it appears to be the response of a person dealing with immense pressure and difficult circumstances.
“This is not the behavior of a mad person,” Sejusa said, adding that the available information suggests there may be more to the story than what has been publicly disclosed.
He further argued that attention should be given not only to the visible events surrounding Wangandya’s resignation but also to what he described as the hidden aspects of the matter. According to him, a deeper investigation could help uncover facts that remain unknown to the public.
Sejusa said understanding those circumstances is important because they may reveal whether there were external pressures, influences, or other factors that contributed to Wangandya’s decision to leave office before the end of her term.
He also suggested that President Museveni may already have knowledge of some of the issues involved, given the information available to him through state channels.
Wangandya recently resigned as Chairperson of the Uganda Human Rights Commission, ending her tenure at the institution before the completion of her six-year mandate. With approximately one year and two months remaining before her expected term expiry in September 2027, her departure has continued to attract public attention and speculation.
As questions surrounding her resignation persist, Sejusa maintains that the focus should be on understanding what may have driven her actions rather than simply judging them at face value.
