High Court Dismisses NUP’s Bid to Regain Political Funding
Kampala, Uganda | The High Court in Kampala has dismissed an application by the National Unity Platform (NUP) that sought to temporarily halt a government directive excluding the party from receiving statutory political funding.
In a ruling delivered by Justice Collins Acellam, the court found that NUP’s application “lacks merit” and was essentially overtaken by events, as the Electoral Commission had already disbursed the funds to qualifying political parties.
The legal battle stems from a directive issued on August 25, 2025, by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs. The directive instructed the Electoral Commission to exclude NUP from the list of political parties eligible for statutory funding for the July-September 2025 quarter.
This directive was based on the recently amended Political Parties and Organisations Act, 2025. The amendment stipulates that public funding shall only be provided to political parties that are members of the Inter-Party Organisation for Dialogue (IPOD) and actively participate in its activities.
NUP, through its lawyers, argued that the Minister’s directive was illegal and violated its right to fair administrative treatment. The party filed a substantive case challenging the amendment and a separate application for a temporary injunction. The dismissed application was for an interim order to prevent any action until the temporary injunction could be heard.
Court’s Reasoning for Dismissal
Justice Acellam outlined several key reasons for dismissing NUP’s urgent application:
- Overtaken by Events: The court found that the Electoral Commission had already disbursed the funds to political parties that are members of IPOD on October 2, 2025. The judge stated that courts do not issue “futile orders” and that the purpose of an interim order is to preserve the status quo, not to reverse a completed action.
- No Imminent Threat or Status Quo: Since the funds had already been distributed, the court ruled there was “no status quo to maintain.” The act NUP sought to stop had already been completed.
- Balance of Convenience: The court held that the balance of convenience favored the government, which was implementing a “clear statutory obligation.” The judge noted that any alleged harm to NUP could potentially be remedied by damages or declaratory relief if the party succeeds in its main constitutional challenge.
- Cannot Suspend an Act of Parliament: The ruling emphasized that an interim order from a civil court cannot be used to suspend the implementation of a lawfully enacted Act of Parliament.
Government’s Position
The Attorney General and the Electoral Commission opposed the application, arguing that NUP had consistently denounced and shunned IPOD. They contended that the party’s failure to meet the legal requirement for funding was a “choice of a political party” and that the government was simply enforcing a valid law.
NUP, in its rejoinder, argued that the IPOD envisaged under the 2025 amendment is a new statutory body and that the party had never been formally invited to join this new entity. They also claimed the disbursement was made in “bad faith” to defeat the court proceedings.
Despite these arguments, the court was not persuaded to grant the interim order.
With this interim application dismissed, the focus now shifts to NUP’s main lawsuit (Miscellaneous Cause No. 260 of 2025), which challenges the constitutionality of the amended Political Parties and Organisations Act itself. The ruling on the temporary injunction application, which was the broader request, is still pending.
About The Author
