A civic activist, Job Kiija, has strongly criticised the government’s renewed proposal to introduce an NGO fund, warning that it could significantly undermine the independence and functioning of civil society organisations in Uganda.
Kiija argues that to fully understand the proposal, one must examine the intent behind it, noting that this is not the first time such an idea has been introduced.
“This is not the first time that the government is proposing an NGO fund. It was proposed in the 2015 amendment process, and it was rejected overwhelmingly,” he said.
According to Kiija, the earlier proposal was dismissed because it was widely viewed as an attempt to control rather than support the NGO sector.
“The spirit behind it was not necessarily to facilitate the operations of the NGO sector, but it was rather to control and constrain the operations of the sector,” he explained.
He further questioned the government’s capacity to finance NGOs, pointing to existing budgetary constraints and rising public debt.
“The government is failing to finance its own budget. NGOs exist to fill up gaps left by inefficiencies of government. So how can the government claim that they can actually finance NGOs?” Kiija asked.
Kiija also raised concerns about accountability, citing past corruption challenges and declining public trust.
“The government has a very bad track record in terms of accountability… You can’t say that the government has become more transparent. They have in fact become worse,” he said.
He referenced the Black Monday campaign, an anti-corruption initiative led by civil society, to illustrate the long-standing tensions between NGOs and the state over governance and transparency issues.
The activist further warned that the proposed framework appears to draw inspiration from restrictive models in other countries, particularly Ethiopia.
“If you look at Ethiopia, any NGO receiving over 80 percent of its funding from external sources becomes a foreign organisation, and cannot comment on public affairs. That should show you the direction this proposal is taking,” he noted.
Kiija believes that the organisations currently being targeted — including those facing suspensions and financial investigations — are primarily those engaged in accountability and governance work.
“Those are the organisations dealing with the accountability challenges in this country, and they are the ones being targeted,” he said.
He also criticised specific provisions within the regulatory impact assessment, arguing that they introduce stricter controls over funding rather than establishing a genuine support mechanism.
“They are not even saying we are going to put in place a fund. They are talking about accreditation of donors — that if a donor wants to finance NGOs, they must first go to the government and get accredited,” he explained.
Under the same proposal, Kiija warned, NGOs that receive funding from unaccredited donors could face legal consequences.
“If an NGO receives funding from a donor that is not accredited, you attract criminal sanctions,” he said.
In his view, these measures clearly indicate that the proposal is designed to restrict rather than strengthen civil society.
“The whole spirit behind this idea of the NGO fund is not really to promote the growth or functioning of civil society, but to constrain, curtail, and decimate it,” Kiija emphasized.
He is now calling on Ugandans to reject the proposal and support civil society organisations.
“There is nothing good in this proposal. All Ugandans need to unite behind civil society and reject this,” he urged.
The debate over the NGO fund comes at a time of heightened scrutiny of the sector, with ongoing concerns about regulatory pressures, funding restrictions, and the broader state of civic space in Uganda.