By Wadada Rogers
In May this year, the Parliament of Uganda amended and passed the Political Parties and Organization’s Act, 2025. The government hid under Article 72(3) of the Constitution, which gives Parliament the power to regulate the financing and functioning of political parties to amend among others Sections 14 and 20 of the Political Parties and Organization’s Act.
The amendment among others validated the National Consultative Forum (NCF) as an umbrella body for all registered political parties in Uganda. The Inter Party Organization for Dialogue (IPOD) was also formalized having been incorporated as a legal entity in 2021 with the mandate of pursuing and promoting inclusive democracy.
It is important to note that IPOD was specifically created under the new Act as a platform for political parties with representation in Parliament. By default, the forum for Non-Represented political parties was also created by the amendment. Unlike before, IPOD is now fully funded by Uganda having kicked out the Netherlands Institute for multiparty democracy.
However, it emerged that that government of Uganda had a sinister motive of gagging and clipping represented but big-headed opposition political parties from benefiting from the money. That is why the new amendment made it mandatory for parties with representation in Parliament to be members of IPOD in order to qualify for funding.
Immediately after passing the amendment, there was a rush by some speculators to register political parties with the aim of securing atleast one slot in the next Parliament. Their rush was not for any other reason but to partake of the billions of shillings that the government of Uganda will henceforth sets aside for funding political parties.
Baka Stephen, the Chairperson of the Legal and Parliamentary affairs Committee while endorsing the amendment said the intervention of the law was timely to promote stability, prevent extremism, ensure accountability, and support responsible and democratic value. He insisted that tying public funding to IPOD membership would encourage tolerance, dialogue, peaceful co-existence and overall political cohesion.
That explains why the leadership of IPOD insists that all political parties which qualify as members must make a formal application, be subjected to a vigorous vetting exercise and if successful must sign a memorandum of understanding before they can be admitted. This is a serious contradiction that all genuine political parties fight from the onset.
The law in the current form makes membership and admission to IPOD automatic, you cannot circumvent the same by any excuse. Initially, IPOD was operating as an NGO wherein membership was optional but with the amendments, membership is compulsory and that is the creature of the Political Parties and Organizations Act, 2025.
By the time the amendments were made, 35 billion was always set aside every year to distributed by the Electoral Commission (EC) to be shared by the seven members with representation in parliament including the National Unity Platform (NUP). However, when the government released money for this quarter, the EC paid the other six political parties leaving out NUP under the pretext that they are not signed up members of IPOD.
Obviously, the idea of amending the law did not fall from the sky, it was the brain child of the NRM and was introduced as a private Members Bill through Hon. Faith Nakut, the Napak Woman MP. I have no doubt in my mind that the amendment was deliberately fronted to settle personal scores with the hope of coercing NUP to work with IPOD by force.
NUP with about 57 Parliamentarians had refused to join IPOD citing serious human right violation on the part of government. It is their refusal and the continued receiving of money that angered the President, he must have felt undermined. He thus pushed for the amendment of the law with the hope of coercing, economic frustration or locking them out completely.
While speaking to the press on July 22, 2025, Norbert Mao the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs announced that five political parties, including his own Democratic Party, the People’s Progressive Party, the National Resistance Movement, JEEMA, and Uganda People’s Congress had committed themselves to work together under IPOD.
For refusing to sign up or providing a confirmation, Mao is said to have cancelled any form of political funding to NUP. I am not so sure if Mao has read the amendments so well but the use of the word mandatory in the law means membership to IPOD was made automatic provided that particular political party has atleast one Member in the August house.
I personally do not seem to understand why Mao does not appreciate that NUP had endorsed their own Benjamin Katana to serve as the vice President of the National Consultative Forum and that they delay to join IOPD was awaiting the formalization of IPOD in line with the recent amendments to the principal Act which is not yet operationalized.
Listening to Mao speaking with a lot of pomp, it is hard to tell he was the man who was pretending to fight Museveni a few years ago. He has forgotten that many of his folks who were fished out of the opposition by Museveni were dumped without a fallback position. Besides, his utterances raise very serious questions about the government’s commitment to inclusive dialogue and the role of opposition parties in Uganda’s political landscape.
Aggrieved by the conduct of EC and IPOD, NUP sought legal redress in the Courts of law. NUP is accusing the two entities for disbursing Ug. Shs.9.8 billion to other political parties and left them out without lawful cause. The leadership at Kavule insists that Ug. Shs.11.25 billion had been earmarked for members yet Shs1.1 billion meant for NUP was withheld.
On the sidelines, IPOD secretariat said NUP was excluded from the funding because they were not named in the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs’ letter as beneficiaries. There is something that Mao has forgotten, when a law is made imposing mandatory obligations, it leaves no room for negotiations but to comply unless under exceptional circumstances.
This therefore defeats IPOD’s argument that NUP is not currently a member and is therefore ineligible for funds under the existing framework. What is interesting is that NUP has already applied but the behavior of the IPOD Council suggest that admission is not automatic and any delay to formalize could see their share of the money returned to the consolidated fund.
There are so many loopholes in the process that led to the amendment of the law on IPOD. If indeed the government had any plans of promoting multiparty democracy, then IPOD money should be distributed equitably. You can imagine that out of the Ug.Shs.11.25 billion that was allocated to IPOD through the EC, NRM took about Ug.Shs.9 billion leaving only Ug.Shs.2.25 billion to be shared by six parties including FDC, DP, UPC, PPP, JEEMA and NUP.
There is no doubt that the uneven allocation of IPOD funds constrains the budgets of opposition political parties and hinders their ability to sponsor candidates during elections as the funding is based on numerical strength in parliament hence disenfranchising opposition parties as they cannot compete favorably against the ruling party that has other sources of money.
The EC and IPOD leaders do not seem to appreciate that besides other shortcoming, there are no official Regulations in place to govern the operations of IPOD. Besides, are these people not aware that the Minister of Justice has not yet signed any known statutory instrument to operationalize the current amendments or are they are simply acting out of emotions?
As the country awaits the decision of court on this subject on October 29, 2025, I do not personally see the justification for denying NUP their share of IPOD money. I see the Court condemning the Minister of Justice, the EC and IPOD for discriminating NUP and forcing them to join IPOD prematurely before the statutory instrument is signed and gazetted.
Irrespective of the outcome of the decision of Justice Accelam Collins which will most likely be made in favour of NUP, I see an appeal coming through as a delaying tactic. This dispute will remain in court until the end of the campaign seasons meaning NUP will not get their share of the funding and will have to find alternatives sources to finance their last campaign lap.
We all know that the process to amend the Act to introduce IPOD was in contravention of Article 93 of the Constitution which prohibits Parliament from processing a private member’s Bill without a charge on the consolidated fund, a fact that was brought out in the minority report but ignored and over-ruled by the Speaker. This could take a centre stage in case of a petition.
Wadada Rogers is a commentator on political, legal and social issues. wadroger@yahoo.ca
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at Submit an Article
