KAMPALA.The High Court in Kampala has dismissed an application by the opposition National Unity Platform (NUP) in which it had sought to block the government from excluding it from receiving statutory political party funding under Inter-Party Organisation for Dialogue (IPOD).
NUP the latest opposition political party in Parliament missed the July–September 2025 quarter funding.
Justice Collins Acellam, who delivered the ruling via email on October 29, 2025, said the application had been overtaken by events since the Electoral Commission (EC) had already released the funds to political parties that are members of IPOD.
“This court cannot restrain the implementation of a lawfully enacted statute through an interim order. To do so would amount to suspending an Act of Parliament, which is beyond the jurisdiction of this court sitting as a civil court,” Justice Acellam said.
The dispute arose from a directive issued by the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs on August 25, 2025, instructing the EC to exclude NUP from the list of political parties entitled to receive statutory funding. The directive followed amendments to the Political Parties and Organisations Act, which now require that only parties belonging to IPOD and actively participating in its activities qualify for state funding.
NUP, through its Secretary General, Mr David Lewis Rubongoya, filed the application seeking an interim order to stop implementation of the directive until the court determines its main case challenging the legality of the amendment and the directive itself.
Mr Rubongoya stated in his affidavit that enforcement of the directive would cripple NUP’s operations as a national political party and cause irreparable harm, arguing that the party is legally entitled to quarterly funding.
NUP’s lawyers from Pace Advocates and Kiiza & Mugisha Advocates contended that the minister’s directive had no legal basis and breached the party’s right to fair administrative treatment. They argued that IPOD only became a statutory organ after the President assented to the amended law in June 2025, and therefore, NUP could not have been compelled to join before that date.
“The applicant has never received any formal invitation or lawful communication regarding membership in the IPOD contemplated by the 2025 Amendment,” NUP argued, adding that its past refusal to join the old IPOD was based on its operation as a private entity outside government control.
The Attorney General, represented by Senior State Attorney Johnson Natuhwera, opposed the application, describing it as incompetent, frivolous and overtaken by events. He maintained that the minister’s directive was lawful and anchored in the amended Act.
“The minister’s letter dated August 25, 2025, is founded in law. What is being sought by the applicant is unconstitutional and ultra vires,” Mr Natuhwera told court.
He explained that Parliament amended the Political Parties and Organisations Act in May 2025 to restrict government funding to parties that are members of IPOD, and that the President assented to the law on June 15, 2025, making it enforceable.
Mr Natuhwera added that the EC had already disbursed the funds to all qualifying political parties in compliance with the new legal framework.
In his ruling, Justice Acellam said that while NUP had identified a legal right it sought to protect, it failed to show that irreparable harm would occur if the interim order was not issued.
He noted that the court could not issue orders reversing a completed process.
“The purpose of an interim injunction is to preserve the status quo, not to reverse a completed event,” he stated.
The judge cited earlier decisions, including Theodore Ssekikubo & Others vs Attorney General and Another, emphasising that courts should not issue orders rendered useless by the passage of events.
He further found that the balance of convenience favoured the respondents, who were implementing a valid law.
“There is no status quo to maintain and no imminent threat posed to the applicant,” he ruled.
Justice Acellam concluded that the application lacked merit and dismissed it with costs, noting that any potential losses to NUP could be addressed in the pending main case.
The main suit challenging the 2025 amendment and the minister’s directive remains before the High Court.