The controversy surrounding Dr. Lawrence Muganga’s failed bid for appointment as Minister of State for Internal Affairs has taken a new turn after a section of Banyarwanda in Masaka called for ethnic representation in the ministry if he is not appointed.
The Appointments Committee of Parliament recently declined to approve Muganga, citing unresolved concerns over his citizenship status.
MPs reportedly questioned his failure to fully clarify alleged links to multiple citizenships, a sensitive matter given that the Internal Affairs docket oversees immigration, passports and national identity systems.
It is against this background that the Masaka group argued that they face challenges when dealing with immigration services and suggested that having “one of their own” in charge would improve access and efficiency.
The remarks have since triggered wider debate on national identity and public appointments.
Media personality Mordecai Muriisa, in a commentary, warned that the debate was shifting into dangerous territory, arguing that public offices should not be tied to ethnic identity.
“Just when many thought the controversy surrounding Dr. Lawrence Muganga's citizenship could not take another bizarre turn, it has done exactly that,” he said.
He noted that the demand for ethnic representation in ministerial positions risks setting a precedent that could extend across government.
“With growing doubts over whether Muganga will ultimately be appointed Minister of Internal Affairs because of the unresolved questions surrounding his multiple citizenship status, a group of Banyarwanda in Masaka has now stepped forward with a surprising demand: if Muganga misses out on the job, President Museveni should appoint another Munyarwanda to the position.”
Muriisa argued that such reasoning undermines the principles of national unity and equal service delivery, stressing that government positions are not allocated on ethnic grounds.
“Their argument is that they allegedly face difficulties when dealing with the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Immigration and that having ‘one of their own’ at the helm would make things easier. But that line of thinking is not only dangerous—it strikes at the very foundation of national unity.”
He warned that if such claims are normalized, they could open the door for competing ethnic demands across different ministries.
“Public offices are not tribal trophies to be distributed according to ethnicity. Ministers are supposed to serve all Ugandans equally, regardless of tribe, religion, region, or political affiliation.”
According to him, allowing ethnic claims over ministries could reshape how public appointments are viewed in the country.
“The moment we begin arguing that a particular tribe deserves a particular ministry because it serves the interests of that tribe, we open a door that may be impossible to close.”
He further questioned the long-term implications of such demands, noting that other communities could also begin seeking control of specific government dockets.
“If Banyarwanda must have their own minister at Internal Affairs, then what stops every other ethnic group from demanding ownership of specific ministries?”
Muriisa concluded that Uganda risks deepening divisions if ethnic entitlement becomes part of public administration.
“The Ministry of Internal Affairs belongs to all Ugandans—not to any tribe, not to any region, and not to any ethnic constituency.”