By James Paul
Civil society organisations in Uganda have called for an immediate reversal of government actions targeting non-governmental organisations (NGOs), rejecting accusations that they are linked to terrorism and warning that continued restrictions could erode democratic freedoms and public trust.
Speaking at a joint press briefing in Kampala on Monday, activists described recent measures—including suspensions and financial restrictions—as unjustified and reflective of a broader pattern of shrinking civic space. They insisted that NGOs remain essential partners in service delivery, governance, and human rights advocacy, pushing back strongly against narratives that seek to portray them as security threats.
“NGOs are not terrorist organisations,” the groups said in a unified statement presented by civic activist Andrew Karamagi, alongside contributions from Sarah Bireete, Sarah Mukasa, and Job Kiija. The speakers condemned what they described as increasing hostility toward civil society, warning that the current trajectory risks undermining years of progress in citizen engagement and institutional accountability.
The organisations argued that the latest actions mirror previous crackdowns during politically sensitive periods, particularly around election cycles when NGO operations have historically faced heightened scrutiny, suspensions, and raids. They cautioned that sustained pressure on civil society could weaken independent oversight, reduce public participation in governance, and ultimately diminish confidence in democratic processes.
Authorities in Uganda have consistently defended such actions as necessary to ensure compliance with the law and to safeguard national security, but civil society actors contend that the scope and timing of the measures raise serious concerns about their broader implications.
Beyond the immediate crackdown, activists also raised alarm over a proposed regulatory framework widely referred to as the NGO Funding Bill, which seeks to establish a centralised mechanism for managing NGO financing while tightening controls over how organisations access and use funds. Under the proposal, NGOs would be required to disclose all foreign funding received—including sources, amounts, and intended use—within strict reporting timelines, while authorities would be empowered to limit the proportion of foreign funding available to organisations.
The draft framework further suggests that large foreign grants could be subject to prior government approval and channelled through a central fund, a move that would significantly reduce direct financial relationships between donors and NGOs. While the proposals are framed as efforts to strengthen accountability, enhance transparency, and promote local resource mobilisation, they also include provisions to restrict funding linked to political or electoral activities.
Supporters of the reforms argue that such measures are necessary to protect national sovereignty and improve oversight of external financial flows. However, critics warn that centralising funding control could give the state considerable leverage over civil society operations, potentially compromising the independence of organisations, particularly those engaged in governance, anti-corruption initiatives, and election monitoring.
Civil society actors say the combined effect of the ongoing crackdown and the proposed funding framework could significantly shrink civic space in Uganda, limiting the ability of NGOs to operate freely and weakening their role as watchdogs and service providers. They argue that without adequate safeguards, the reforms risk blurring the line between regulation and control.
The groups have called on the government to halt current enforcement actions and instead engage civil society in constructive dialogue, emphasizing the need to uphold constitutional freedoms of association and expression. They also urged policymakers to ensure that any regulatory reforms strike a careful balance between accountability and the preservation of NGO autonomy.
For civil society organisations, the stakes extend beyond institutional survival. They warn that failure to reverse the crackdown and recalibrate the proposed reforms could have far-reaching consequences for governance, citizen participation, and the delivery of essential services across Uganda, at a time when public trust and democratic resilience remain critical.
