The UHRC is playing an important role in Uganda in building a stronger culture of human rights. The UHRC is serving as a channel between the population and government institutions, educating both the public and government agencies, while simultaneously pushing for human rights abuses to be addressed by the responsible institutions and for corrective action is taken. If it continues to build on the gains it has made to date, the UHRC has the potential to contribute an important role in making long-term gains for human rights in Uganda.

The UHRC has engaged in significant monitoring activities in more contentious areas of human rights, meeting an important need in Uganda. Notwithstanding its limited capacity, the UHRC has carried out credible and detailed investigations into human rights abuses in Uganda, and has not shied away from criticizing the security agencies involved in abuses. The UHRC occupies a unique position in the Ugandan human rights community, because it has constitutionally entrenched powers to demand an end to human rights abuses. NGOs have the ability to monitor and document human rights abuses, and to advocate reform, but they can hardly evoke a constitutional mandate to demand an end to human rights abuses. In addition, its position as a constitutionally entrenched body gives the UHRC a high level of protection from government retaliation.

In doing its work, the UHRC has recognized its complementary role to the work of NGOs, and has worked with NGOs in this spirit of mutual acceptance and partnership. According to UHRC chair Margaret Sekaggya, the work of the UHRC and human rights NGOs is "mutual and complementary."93 International and local NGOs find the UHRC a serious player. The UHRC has also recognized that it is not able to do everything and has been willing to give moral support and encouragement to the work of NGOs raising concerns about Uganda's human rights record. As Margaret Sekaggya noted, "it takes time, so you really have to work with the NGOs."94 She also recognizes the positive role the media plays in broadcasting their message. Additionally, the UHRC's voice on a human rights issue gives license to the media to cover even a politically controversial human rights issue. Margaret Sekaggya noted the importance of the UHRC in empowering the media, noting: "the media usually knows about an issue, but may be scared to report on it. If we make a statement, we can play a vital role in helping to get the message out."95

It remains to be seen whether the strong partnership between the UHRC and the NGO community is a function of the progressive vision of Margaret Sekaggya or an institutional approach that will continue after her leadership. The message of NGO partnership by chair Sekaggya was not echoed as strongly by another commission member who voiced the concerns about the value of the public approach sometimes adopted by NGOs:

NGOs have a lot to learn . . . . NGOs are not transparent enough about their work. Seriousness and responsibility from NGOs are needed. NGOs are sometimes too antagonistic, like international NGOs, they just scream loud but don't make an effort to talk to those responsible and change their attitudes. They think the main objective of their work is exposure.96

Because of its recent creation and its limited capacity and funding, the UHRC's ability to monitor human rights abuses is hampered somewhat-and while it has done significant work, the UHRC has been silent on some of the most egregious abuses taking place in Uganda. Most noticeable is the relative absence of reporting on human rights abuses in the rebel-destabilized North, Northwest, and West of Uganda, where some of the most serious violations are taking place, both at the hands of rebel groups and to a lesser extent by UPDF. The UHRC readily acknowledges its current limitations, and hopes to establish a more permanent presence in these regions in the future.

The often painfully slow response of the UHRC to complaints brought to it, partially caused by non-cooperation by security agencies, has led to some frustration by victims and needs to be remedied if the UHRC hopes to keep up its credibility as an institution. A Gulu-based human rights activist told Human Rights Watch: "I have sent ten complaints to the commission, but have not yet heard back from them, not even an acknowledgment of receipt. So now the people who made the complaints come to check with me, and there is nothing for me to tell them."97 Livingstone Sewanyana of FHRI expressed similar frustrations:

We have sent cases to the commission, but most remain unresolved. I doubt whether any cases have been resolved, and it has been more than one and a half years. The process is quite slow, and we have to contact them for information and updates on cases.

The UHRC is beholden to high expectations because of the record it has established, reinforced by its substantial constitutional powers, and its own efforts at educating the public about their human rights, but it must still prove its worth in terms of tangible results:

They are not an NGO and they have constitutional powers, so we should see cases of people walking to freedom. That is when we will know that we have a commission. They have done a good job in terms of educating the public about their existence and role in society, but have not yet delivered on these heightened expectations. There must be tangible results before people will accept the commission as an institution and recognize its worth.98

The UHRC also has to overcome a long history of distrust and suspicion of government bodies due to Uganda's history. NGO activists remain wary. James Otto, Secretary-General of the Gulu-based Human Rights Focus expressed this fear to Human Rights Watch when he said:

In general, we see the commission as a partner and we do not have any problems with them . . . . But even Amin had his own human rights commission which reported directly to him. So you never know if it is just window-dressing. The moment the government turns dictatorial, they will try to suffocate the NGOs to give the government breathing space. Under such circumstances, the human rights commission could be used for window-dressing. It has happened in many places where the government has tried to undermine the independent civil society by setting up alternative government-sponsored institutions, such as the state-sponsored teachers' union in Ethiopia.99

The UHRC has ambitious plans for the expansion of its own work, hoping for a greater role in human rights education, monitoring, as well as local and international advocacy. Most NGO activists express the hope that the UHRC will focus more on developing its human rights enforcement powers, rather than attempting to play a dominant role in the human rights education field which local NGOs in which they have developed significant expertise. Uganda has a diverse and vocal civil society, and many local groups engage in human rights work. The Uganda Human Rights Network (HURINET), a consortium of human rights NGOs, has fourteen active member organizations. Despite its vocalness and diversity, most human rights NGOs focus mostly on human rights education and do not concentrate on active human rights monitoring, although some groups such as FHRI in Kampala and Human Rights Focus (HURIFO) in Gulu are beginning to engage in such activities. When local human rights NGOs do engage in monitoring activities, they tend to focus on politically non-controversial issues such as prison conditions and women's rights, where the Ugandan government has shown a commitment to reform.

Ironically, there is similar territorial sentiment about human rights education work expressed by some in the UHRC. UHRC commissioner Rev. John Waliggo expressed concern that NGOs were duplicating the commission's work when they undertook education activities: "In Uganda,[ the NGOs] are sometimes pushed by funders to issues which they should not work on. For example, a Danish organization has pushed NGOs to do human rights education which duplicates the work of the commission."100

There is value in both the UHRC and the NGO community conducting education and promotional activities separately as well as collaboratively, where beneficial. Whatever its resources and initiative, the UHRC will never be able to match the monitoring capacity of hundreds of local activists working throughout Uganda. More importantly, the UHRC should not develop its education programs at the expense of its enforcement and protection work. Livingstone Sewanyana, executive director of FHRI and a supporter of the UHRC, rightly noted:

As a human rights commission, its special expertise lies in its ability to enforce the human rights of victims. As long as this is not done, there is little value in having a commission . . . . The commission is a positive addition to the human rights community if it lives up to expectations. If they choose to focus on human rights education rather than human rights enforcement, there is the potential that they could create tensions with human rights NGOs, especially if they press for a coordinating role. NGOs are more than capable to do this [human rights education work], but the protective functions are lacking.101