Opposition parties are protesting a new directive barring the Electoral Commission from disbursing government funds to political parties with representation in Parliament--an amendment they say threatens the future of multiparty democracy and undermines fair political competition.
The decision, reportedly influenced by a government-backed letter, has sparked widespread condemnation and triggered plans for a constitutional court challenge.
Alliance for National Transformation (ANT) leader Mugisha Muntu described the move as a deliberate attempt to suffocate dissent and tilt the political playing field in favour of the ruling party.
"What we're witnessing is a betrayal of democracy. The selective allocation of funds based on who is in Parliament undermines fairness and discourages genuine political competition," Muntu, a retired Major General and former Army Commander, said.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
"We won't work hard just to chase money--we will work to change the country's leadership. But we'll still demand what is lawfully ours."
Muntu confirmed that ANT is preparing a legal challenge, signalling a broader fight to protect institutional funding for political parties.
Kampala Lord Mayor and People's Front for Freedom (PFF) president Erias Lukwago echoed those concerns, calling the amendment politically motivated and dangerous.
"This letter was written in bad faith. It's clear they're trying to starve the opposition and force us to the table with conditions," Lukwago said.
"Let the NRM and DP know that the traps they're setting now may ensnare them in the future when they are no longer in power."
He stressed that the matter is not solely about finances but about protecting equitable access to the political arena.
"We'll continue demanding our share of the funds, but the fight is bigger. If government closes financial taps, it only pushes parties toward foreign funding, which they claim to fear."
IPOD defends the changes
Amid the backlash, the Inter-Party Organisation for Dialogue (IPOD) has defended the amendment, framing it as a reform meant to promote dialogue and institutional maturity rather than weaken political opposition.
"This reform is not meant to kill parties. On the contrary, it should compel them to engage more through dialogue," said Dr Lawrence Sserwambala, head of IPOD's secretariat.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
"We advise political parties not to make funds their top priority. Parties existed before government financing began, and they'll survive beyond it."
He encouraged parties to raise concerns within the IPOD framework rather than turning to foreign backers or media outcry.
"If you have a disagreement, come and argue within IPOD. Don't campaign against the process from the outside," Sserwambala added.
Although smaller parties without parliamentary representation have traditionally been excluded from state financing, some now say the changes might offer them a more level playing field. Still, larger parties such as the Uganda People's Congress (UPC)--historically vocal about funding fairness--have remained conspicuously silent on the latest developments.
With elections slated for 2026, the amendment has injected fresh uncertainty into Uganda's political landscape.
Legal petitions appear imminent, and the opposition is already exploring alternative fundraising models.
The coming months are likely to see a tug-of-war not just over money, but over the very principles of political legitimacy and institutional equity--raising broader questions about how power is distributed and preserved in Uganda's evolving democracy.
