Good evening. I’m Samson Kasumba, and this is De Brief.
Tonight, we turn the spotlight on Uganda’s evolving multiparty system through a single but seismic lens—money. Specifically, the kind of money that keeps political parties functioning, contesting, and surviving.
At the centre of the conversation is the newly passed Political Parties and Organisations (Amendment) Bill, 2025—a piece of legislation that could reshape Uganda’s democratic space. Not just by what it funds, but by what it withholds. Who qualifies for public money now? Who is excluded? And more importantly—why?
The Bill passed on May 20 amidst controversy, especially over one key clause: funding tied to conduct. For the first time, political parties will be required to demonstrate “tolerance,” “peaceful conduct,” and “dialogue” to access public funds.
On paper, this sounds noble. But in a political environment often defined by tension and distrust, it’s a standard that raises more questions than answers.
What constitutes “tolerance”? Is it measured in rhetoric, in actions—or in silence? If a party criticizes government excesses, is that intolerance—or is it the democratic duty of an opposition?
And crucially, who decides what conduct is acceptable? The Electoral Commission? Parliament? The ruling party?
If signed into law, this provision could make access to public funds contingent on interpretation—subjective, political, and possibly punitive. Is this about upholding values—or financially strangling dissent?
At the heart of this shift lies IPOD—the Inter-Party Organisation for Dialogue—now legally enshrined in the National Consultative Forum. The amendment introduces two IPOD branches: one for parties in Parliament, another for those without seats.
On paper, it looks inclusive. In practice, it risks entrenching gatekeeping.
The law states:
“No political party shall receive funding from the Consolidated Fund unless it participates in the activities of the Inter-Party Organisation for Dialogue.”
But what does “participate” really mean? Is it attendance? Agreement? Deference?
IPOD hasn’t met in four years. If a party skips a defunct platform, is it failing to “participate”—or resisting tokenism?
With the NRM chairing IPOD, participation could become compliance, and dissent could be framed as disorder.
In the most recent disbursement of Shs44.9 billion, NRM received over 75%—about Shs34.1 billion. The opposition, including FDC and NUP, received far less.
The formula remains, but the conditions have changed. Conduct and IPOD involvement now gate access.
Is this about fairness—or has public funding become a reward system, where loyalty pays and dissent costs?
In a system where foreign funding is restricted, and private fundraising is surveilled, where exactly should opposition parties turn?
Will they be pushed underground—into informal or even illicit funding sources?
And if they turn abroad, will they be accused of undermining sovereignty?
The Bill’s procedural legitimacy is also under question. Erute South MP Jonathan Odur raised Article 93 of the Constitution, which bars Parliament from passing financial bills not introduced by Cabinet.
This amendment creates two new IPOD branches—requiring public funding—but without Cabinet introduction. Constitutionally defective? Perhaps. Politically convenient? Most likely.
The bill's sponsorship was murky. First introduced by Usuk MP Bosco Okiror, later championed by Faith Nakut. Its seconder, Martin Ojara Mapenduzi, was reportedly absent during key debates.
If this is democratic reform, why were political parties excluded from consultations?
Are we legislating for democracy—or legislating against pluralism?
Final Thoughts
The Political Parties and Organisations (Amendment) Bill, 2025 presents itself as a blueprint for more responsible politics.
But to many, it reads like a political trapdoor—where public funding becomes the reward for compliance, and silence is subsidized.
Will this law promote cooperation—or compel conformity?
Is Uganda heading for more disciplined politics—or more brittle democracy?
In this new framework, will political parties remain true to their mission—or trade principle for solvency?
Because, as always, the fate of democracy lies not only in the laws we write—but in the politics we practice.
Until next time, good afternoon.