By Lumpe Media
Ministerial nominee Dr. Lawrence Muganga has broken his silence following his rejection by Parliament’s Appointments Committee, dismissing allegations that he holds a Rwandan passport and claiming the vetting process was influenced by prejudice rather than facts.
Speaking publicly after days of intense debate, Muganga rejected assertions that his nomination failed because of concerns over foreign citizenship, insisting that claims linking him to Rwanda are false and misleading.
His remarks come after Kasambya County MP David Kabanda defended the committee’s decision, stating that investigators had reportedly established that Muganga possessed Ugandan, Canadian and Rwandan citizenship.
However, Muganga strongly disputed that account.
“I do not hold a Rwandan passport. That allegation is completely false and should not be used to justify what happened during the vetting process,” he said.
The former university vice chancellor further alleged that some members of the committee had already made up their minds before he appeared for scrutiny, arguing that the outcome was predetermined.
According to Muganga, comments allegedly made during the process suggested that his rejection was not based on competence, qualifications or legal considerations.
“This decision had already been made before I entered the room. The process became a formality rather than a genuine assessment of my suitability for office,” he said.
Muganga also described the experience as one of the most painful moments of his public life, claiming that he was unfairly targeted because of his ethnic background.
“What I witnessed was not objective oversight. It was discrimination and hostility directed at me because I am a Munyarwanda,” he stated.
The educationist emphasized that Banyarwanda are a recognized community in Uganda and have contributed significantly to the country’s development across various sectors.
“We are Ugandans. We have worked, invested, paid taxes and served this country for generations. No Ugandan should be judged or excluded because of their ancestry,” he said.
Muganga highlighted his decades-long career in education and leadership, noting that he has represented Uganda on international platforms and worked extensively to promote educational transformation.
He said that despite interacting with people from different cultures and backgrounds around the world, he had never encountered the level of hostility he experienced during the vetting process.
The nominee has previously acknowledged holding both Ugandan and Canadian citizenship, maintaining that dual citizenship does not diminish one’s loyalty or commitment to Uganda.
“Many Ugandans acquire dual citizenship, but that does not change their identity or their love for this country. Uganda remains my home,” he said.
The controversy has sparked wider public debate about citizenship, patriotism and eligibility for public office, with many Ugandans arguing that an individual’s contribution to national development should carry significant weight in such discussions.
Legal experts have also weighed in, questioning whether provisions of the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act that restrict dual citizens from holding certain public offices are fully aligned with constitutional guarantees.
Some constitutional lawyers contend that any Ugandan citizen qualified to serve as a Member of Parliament should equally be eligible for appointment as a minister, regardless of whether they hold another nationality.
As the discussion continues, Muganga says the matter extends beyond his personal nomination and touches on the principle of equal treatment for all citizens.
“This is bigger than me. It is about ensuring that every Ugandan is treated fairly and judged by their character, qualifications and service to the nation, not by their ethnicity or ancestry,” he said.
The debate surrounding his nomination continues to generate strong reactions, with supporters viewing him as a victim of discrimination while others maintain that questions surrounding citizenship and legal eligibility must be thoroughly addressed before appointments to public office are approved.