The Secretary of the National Bureau for Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO Bureau), Mr Stephen Okello, has been sued in the High Court over the continued suspension of several non-governmental organisations ahead of the 2026 general elections, with the petitioner accusing him of acting outside the law.
In a petition filed on June 15, city lawyer Mr Michael Aboneka contends that Mr Okello arbitrarily suspended a number of NGOs without due process and without the authority of a legally constituted NGO Bureau.
Mr Aboneka argues that at the time the suspensions were effected, there was no duly constituted NGO Bureau to authorise the action.
‘At the time of the suspension of the NGOs, there was no NGO Bureau constituted, and therefore the respondent (Mr Okello) acted on his own volition to effect the suspension,’ Mr Aboneka states in the court documents.
He further alleges that the suspensions were carried out in disregard of the law, the constitutional right to a fair hearing, and the principles of natural justice.
‘The respondent executed the impugned suspension in disregard of the law, the constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28 and the rules of natural justice. The continued indefinite suspension of NGOs amounts to contempt of court, as this was prohibited by the Honourable Court in Chapter Four Uganda versus Attorney General (Miscellaneous Cause No. 202 of 2021),’ the petition reads.
The lawsuit stems from the January 9, 2026 decision by the NGO Bureau to suspend at least 10 prominent civil society and election-monitoring organisations days before the January 15 general elections.
At the time, the government cited intelligence reports alleging that the organisations were engaged in activities prejudicial to national security.
The affected organisations included Chapter Four Uganda, Alliance for Election Finance Monitoring, Human Rights Network for Journalists-Uganda (HRNJ-U), the National NGO Forum and the National Coalition of Human Rights Defenders.
Each organisation received a suspension letter from the NGO Bureau citing intelligence information that allegedly linked them to activities contrary to Ugandan laws and threatening national security, contrary to Section 42(d) of the NGO Act.
However, Mr Aboneka argues that the indefinite suspensions were imposed without any legal mandate and have remained in force without affording the affected organisations an opportunity to be heard.
He contends that the continued closure of the organisations violates citizens’ constitutional rights to freedom of association and participation in governance as guaranteed under Articles 29(1)(e) and 38(2) of the Constitution.
The petitioner, who says he is bringing the matter in the public interest, also argues that the suspension of NGOs that provide legal aid services has undermined access to justice, particularly for vulnerable and indigent persons.
According to the petition, the closure of organisations offering legal assistance and human rights services has denied many Ugandans essential support and representation.
Mr Aboneka is now seeking a declaration from the court that the suspension of the NGOs by Mr Okello was illegal and unlawful.
He also wants the court to declare that the halting of operations of NGOs offering legal aid and rights-based services violates the fundamental right to access justice.
‘The continued suspension of NGOs by the respondent (Mr Okello) is a continuous violation of constitutional rights and freedoms; the right to a fair hearing guaranteed under Article 28; the right to fair and just treatment in administrative decisions guaranteed under Article 42; the right of citizens to participate in the affairs of government through associations guaranteed under Article 38(2); and the freedom of association guaranteed under Article 29(1)(e),’ Mr Aboneka states in the petition.
The lawyer is also seeking a permanent injunction restraining Mr Okello from undertaking any actions affecting NGOs unless authorised by a legally constituted NGO Bureau.
By press time, Mr Okello, who is being sued in his personal capacity, had not filed his defence.
The High Court is yet to fix the matter for hearing.