KAMPALA — The ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) has defended itself against mounting criticism over the controversial amendment to the Political Parties and Organizations Act by insisting it too suffers injustices at the hands of state security agencies.
NRM Secretary General Richard Todwong made the remarks in Kampala on Friday, suggesting that brutality, arbitrary arrests and political repression are not exclusive to opposition parties.
“What we go through as political parties in the hands of security forces affects all of us uniformly,” Todwong told reporters.
“Our members have been beaten, our members have been arrested. People assume security acts on behalf of the NRM, but we too have suffered.”
His comments come in the wake of fierce backlash over the newly passed Political Parties and Organizations (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which ties public funding for political parties to their participation in the Inter-Party Organisation for Dialogue (IPOD).
The bill, introduced by Napak District Woman MP Faith Nakut, amends Section 14 of the Act to exclude parties that refuse to join IPOD from receiving government subventions.
It also formalises IPOD as a structure within the political framework and establishes a Forum for Non-Represented Political Parties under the National Consultative Forum.
Opposition leaders have denounced the law as coercive and unconstitutional.
“This is not reform—it’s retribution dressed up in law,” said constitutional lawyer Nicholas Opiyo. “It’s a direct violation of the right to free association and will cripple dissent.”
The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) chairman Sadam Gayira was even more blunt, saying the law pushes Uganda back toward a de facto one-party state.
“This amendment is not about promoting dialogue—it’s about punishing dissent,” Gayira said. “IPOD is a ceremonial platform hijacked by the ruling elite. They want to dress it up as consensus, but it’s control.”
But Todwong’s remarks appeared to acknowledge, for the first time in recent memory, that NRM too is on the receiving end of security high-handedness—at least when it serves internal power struggles or local dynamics.
“Sometimes the assumption is that security agencies are acting in our favour. But in many instances, our own cadres suffer the same fate. We have members who’ve been tortured, detained, or blocked from holding events,” he said.
Observers read the NRM’s claims of shared victimhood as an attempt to deflect accusations that the amendment is designed to weaken opposition parties and entrench NRM dominance through state resources.
MP Nakut defended the bill in Parliament, arguing that public funds should only support parties committed to national dialogue and peaceful coexistence.
“It is unacceptable that some parties receive taxpayer money while shunning values like engagement and unity,” she said during debate.
IPOD’s Executive Director Lawrence Serwambala agreed that the platform needs reform but warned that participation must not be forced.
“For IPOD to work, it must operate independently and not as an extension of government,” he said.
“Opposition parties face event blockades, arrests, and surveillance. If those conditions remain, dialogue becomes meaningless.”
Serwambala also pointed to declining global donor support for democracy programmes and urged Ugandans to take more responsibility for their political institutions.
“With Europe and the U.S. turning inward, we must own our democratic processes,” he said. “But we also need to build a culture of contribution, not just complaint.”
Todwong revealed that NRM intends to petition the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prime Minister’s office over repeated complaints about the conduct of security forces toward political actors—regardless of party affiliation.
It remains to be seen whether this amounts to a genuine shift or a rhetorical manoeuvre to blunt opposition outrage.
But the NRM’s admission that its own ranks have faced repression has, for once, opened a crack in Uganda’s rigid political narrative.