Parliament’s Political Parties Bill: Funding with Strings or Guardrails for Democracy?
Parliament has passed the Political Parties and Organisations (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which introduces new conditions under which political parties may receive state funding. While supporters say it strengthens accountability and promotes democratic norms, opponents warn it could be used to marginalize dissenting voices ahead of the 2026 general elections.
Key Provisions of the Bill
Parties must be members of the Inter-Party Organisation for Dialogue (IPOD) to qualify for government funding.
Eligible parties are required to commit to democratic principles such as tolerance, dialogue, peaceful coexistence.
The Bill tasks Parliament with regulating the financing and functioning of political organisations under Article 72(3) of the Constitution.
Supporters’ Arguments
Proponents argue that funding conditions will improve the conduct of political parties, ensuring that they adhere to democratic norms, and reduce chaos or violence.
The Attorney General and others supporting the Bill say that linking funding to IPOD membership ensures parties participate in structured dialogue.
Critics & Risks Highlighted
Opposition parties, especially those not in IPOD (or those with a strained relationship to it), fear exclusion from funding could weaken their ability to campaign, organize, and compete.
There are concerns that the definition of “commitment to democratic principles” may be vague and selectively enforced.
Combined with other legal and judicial pressures (such as use of military courts or tougher regulations on speech), the Bill may be another tool in the arsenal narrowing space for opposition.
Legal & Institutional Context
Earlier in 2025, Uganda’s Supreme Court ruled that prosecutions of civilians in military courts are unconstitutional, ordering that those trials be halted and cases transferred.
Despite that ruling, Parliament passed the UPDF Amendment Bill, 2025, which restores military courts’ authority under certain conditions — contravening the Supreme Court’s decision in the eyes of many observers.
Implications for Politics & the 2026 Election
The funding bill could shift campaign dynamics: parties with robust resources and strong ties to power structures are likely to fare better.
Opposition parties could find themselves underfunded, with limited reach — especially in rural or less privileged areas.
Public perception matters: if citizens view the funding rules as unfair or partisan, trust in the electoral process may erode.
Judicial independence and constitutional rights will be under the microscope. The repeated tension between the legislature/executive and judicial rulings (e.g. over military trials) sets up potential litigation or political stand-offs.
What to Watch
How the Electoral Commission implements the Bill — what criteria are used, how transparent the process is.
Whether opposition parties challenged by funding exclusion bring legal suits or mobilize public opinion.
The response from civil society, media, and international partners regarding fairness and freedom of political competition.
Interactions with other legal changes (military court law, speech laws, campaign regulation) to see whether there is a cumulative effect shrinking democratic space.
