A heated debate erupted in the legal and parliamentary affairs committee as MPs began scrutinising the Political Parties and Organisations Bill, tabled by MP Faith Nakut.
The bill seeks to make government funding for political parties conditional on their participation in formal dialogue platforms.
MP Yusuf Mutembuli (Bunyole East), who presented the bill, said it comprises just two clauses but carries major implications.
He explained that the proposed law would deny funding to political parties that refuse to engage in inter-party dialogue.
It also proposes recognising the Inter-Party Organisation for Dialogue (IPOD) as an official organ under the National Consultative Forum.
“The intention of this bill, specifically concerning political party funding, is to promote dialogue, peace, tolerance, and stability,” Mutembuli told the committee.
But his remarks were swiftly met with resistance from fellow MPs, who described the bill as an attempt to coerce political parties into cooperation with government.
MP Odur Jonathan called it “a scheme to compromise and weaken political parties,” warning that it risks turning political financing into a tool of control.
His concerns were echoed by MP Medard Sseggona, who questioned, “Why force parties to dialogue?”
He argued that participation in political dialogue should be voluntary, not imposed through financial pressure.
Other MPs on the committee voiced similar misgivings, arguing that the bill undermines political pluralism and autonomy.
“The Nakut Bill is detrimental to the political environment,” Odur added.
Committee members questioned both the logic and origin of the bill, with some openly doubting that it was genuinely conceived by its sponsors.
They described the proposal as poorly thought out and potentially damaging to Uganda’s multi-party democracy.
At the centre of the debate was the bill’s central provision—tying access to government funds to a party’s willingness to engage in dialogue.
Several MPs rejected this as an unconstitutional attempt to influence political positions and limit dissent.
The committee is expected to subject the bill to deeper scrutiny in the coming days.
But the early signs suggest a tough road ahead for a proposal that many lawmakers see as a veiled attempt to erode political independence under the guise of promoting dialogue.