The Interparty Party Organisation for Dialogue (IPOD) and its offerings is so far the biggest story of the 2026 election campaigns.
The IPOD is a public-funded space offering a platform on which political parties with representation in parliament can interact. But in a quintessential Ugandan political setting of the post-2006 Museveni era, opposition political groups would do better to avoid IPOD.
There was a lukewarm interest in IPOD by FDC under the general guidance of Col (rtd) Dr Kizza Besigye. When NUP was created and became big, they too avoided IPOD.
Then an idea was mooted: the State should fund political organisations in the act of deepening democracy.
This funding would be based on representation in Parliament. Later, this idea was enhanced in some law or other, with some requirements or demands. To access these funds, a political party would have to sign up on some minimum regulatory requirements.
Mr Mohammed Nsereko, the outgoing MP for Kampala Central, revealed some of the requirements: a political party would subtly be required to be subservient to the status quo. No demos. Unsatisfied political actors should seek recourse in the courts of law as opposed to the street.
In the political dynamics obtaining in Uganda, a political party worth the name (and running a protest vote campaign) would be better off distancing itself from IPOD. So, why does NUP want to participate in the activities of IPOD? Answer: Money!
Instead of making a political point by distancing itself from IPOD, the allure of money seems to have blinded our NUP friends from their protest vote beat.
I am no lawyer, but my father (as an absolute family ruler) once told me that ‘the fear of punishment is the basis for respecting the law’.
So, here we are: whereas all political parties with parliamentary representation should be members of IPOD, there is no punishment for political parties that do not participate in IPOD activities. As a strugglist, that should be viewed as an opportunity.
NUP’s argument that they are entitled to the funding by law is weak and lacks ideological steadfastness.
There is this argument that the money is public money and budgeted for. And therefore, NUP is not getting the money from Mr Museveni. But this flies in the face of the moral arguments that were made against the service award given to Mathias Mpuuga.
But most Ugandans know that these IPOD funds are a trap from which most political parties may not extract themselves. Why is NUP not seeing this?
The service award Mr Mpuuga received had been budgeted for and passed by Parliament. But he was scolded and hounded out of office based on the moral argument that he could have declined the offer.
Now, I am vehemently opposed to public funding of political parties. Even the argument of deepening democracy doesn’t cut it for me.
Our friends in NUP would do better in joining me to oppose the use of public funds on groups of people who have not filed audited books of accounts to the appropriate authorities.
From the way flag bearers were chosen to the cry-baby tantrums about IPOD funds, NUP’s claim to be leading a struggle (in the circumstances obtaining in Uganda) should be interrogated.
What the public sees is a clear case of seeking electoral positions (which is not bad). The claim of a high call in the frame of struggle is very far from what we see.
We are not complaining about seeking electoral positions. That too would advance the cause for change, albeit in a small way. Yet we know how the comfort of positions can be detrimental to the struggle.