Kampala — Questions are emerging over whether Uganda’s incoming 12th Parliament could formally consider the controversial NGO Funding Bill, 2026, a proposal that has already stirred debate over foreign funding, civil society independence, and state oversight of non-governmental organisations.
The proposal was originally petitioned earlier this year by youth activist and entrepreneur Nyanzi Martin Luther during the transition period between the 11th and 12th Parliament. While it was not debated before Parliament adjourned, it triggered a national conversation that has continued into the new political cycle.
At the centre of the proposal were measures aimed at restructuring how NGOs and Community-Based Organisations (CBOs) are financed and regulated. These included the creation of a National NGO Fund, stricter disclosure of foreign funding sources, mandatory digital reporting systems, and incentives for local financing of civil society work.
Supporters of the idea argued that Uganda’s heavy reliance on foreign donors leaves local organisations vulnerable to shifting international priorities and funding gaps.
“Foreign donors have been helpful, but they should not remain the only source of support,” Nyanzi said while defending the proposal during public discussions earlier this year.
He maintained that a locally supported funding structure would strengthen sustainability for organisations working in health, education, youth empowerment, and community development.
However, the proposal quickly drew resistance from civil society organisations and governance activists who warned it could increase government influence over independent organisations.
Among the most vocal critics was Dr. Sarah Bireete, who argued that increased state involvement in NGO financing could weaken organisational independence if not carefully designed.
“If not handled carefully, such reforms could limit the operating space for NGOs and CBOs,” she warned during discussions on the proposal.
Civil society groups further raised concerns that stricter reporting requirements and state-managed funding mechanisms could expose organisations to political pressure, particularly those involved in governance, accountability, and human rights work.
The debate later expanded when similar themes appeared in discussions around the Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026 — legislation that introduced stronger provisions on foreign funding disclosure and oversight of externally influenced activities.
Political analysts now say the overlap between the two proposals has fuelled speculation that elements of the NGO Funding Bill could reappear in the 12th Parliament, either as a revived private member’s bill or as part of broader sovereignty-related legislation.
However, there is no formal confirmation yet that the new Parliament will prioritise the proposal when it begins sittings.
Parliamentary procedure allows private member initiatives and petitions to be reintroduced by sponsors or taken up by committees if deemed relevant, meaning the fate of the NGO Funding Bill remains open-ended.
Government officials have previously defended stronger regulation of NGOs as necessary to ensure transparency and protect national interests amid concerns over foreign influence in domestic affairs.
Critics, however, argue that Uganda already has legal frameworks governing NGOs and warn that additional restrictions could shrink civic space and affect organisations delivering essential services in health, education, refugee support, and community development.
As the 12th Parliament prepares to begin its legislative agenda, analysts say the key question is no longer whether the proposal sparked debate — but whether it will re-emerge in formal parliamentary business.
For now, the NGO Funding Bill remains politically unresolved, sitting at the intersection of sovereignty concerns, foreign funding dependence, and the future of Uganda’s civil society sector.
