Desperate NUP Woes Deepen After Court Dismisses Petition On Museveni IPOD Cash With Costs

In a ruling dated October 29, 2025, the High Court dismissed the National Unity Platform (NUP)’s application concerning the Inter-Party Organisation for Dialogue (IPOD) funds, asserting that the party’s desperation led to an embarrassing defeat.

Presided over by Justice Collins Acellam, the court found that NUP’s application lacked merit, stating, “In which case the applicant is not a member of the said organisation (IPOD) and has at all times disassociated itself from it and its activities at all times, and only expressed interest to join the Inter-Party Organisation for Dialogue in a letter dated 7th October 2025 after the statutory payments had already been made by the 2nd respondent.” The ruling exposed NUP’s contradictory stance as the party, previously critical of IPOD, took an embarrassing U-turn in an attempt to claim what they had labeled as “Museveni money” to other political parties in IPOD.

The court further asserted that granting an injunction would unfairly disrupt the operationalization of laws benefiting political parties that are actively participating in IPOD. Therefore, the application was ultimately dismissed: “Accordingly, the application is for an interim order lacks merits as there is no status quo to maintain and no imminent threat is posed to the applicant that there is also no irreparable damages if this order is not issued. This application is therefore dismissed with costs in the cause.”

The implications of this ruling were broader, as it confirmed the legality of the Political Parties and Organisations Act, which NUP had claimed was illegally passed.

The court ruled, “Furthermore, the amendment of the law in 2025 expressly conditions access to public funding on IPOD membership and participation. The Minister’s directive therefore derives its legitimacy from an Act of Parliament duly assented to by the President.”

This affirmation came with another critical message stating, “To do so, would suspend an Act of Parliament which is beyond the jurisdiction of this court sitting as a civil court.”

Justice Acellam emphasized that NUP’s claims of violations of their right to fair administrative treatment should be addressed in the main suit, not in an interim application, stating, “The applicant’s claim that the directive violates its right to fair administrative treatment raises questions which are appropriately addressed in the main suit.”

Moreover, the court reinforced that the purpose of an interim order is to preserve the status quo rather than reverse completed events, referring to the disbursement of funds that had already been allocated to other political parties engaged with IPOD.

The court concluded, “Accordingly, the application is for an interim order lacks merits as there is no status quo to maintain and no imminent threat is posed to the applicant that there is also no irreparable damages if this order is not issued. This application is therefore, dismissed with costs in the cause.”

The background to this ruling traces back to a petition filed by NUP through their Secretary General, David Lewis Rubongoya.

NUP sought several orders, including an interim order restraining the Electoral Commission and the Attorney General from implementing a directive that excluded them from receiving public funding.

In Rubongoya’s affidavit, he outlined concerns that unless an interim order was granted, the party would be denied access to statutory funding, a situation they argued would irreparably harm their rights.

However, the court found no merit in these claims, ultimately reflecting on NUP’s failure to establish a valid legal standing.

As a result, the NUP faces a double jeopardy, not only have they lost their attempt to access the contentious IPOD funds, but they have also been burdened with the responsibility to pay costs to both the Attorney General and the Electoral Commission.

This ruling magnified the precarious position NUP finds itself in, caught in a web of contradictions while desperately seeking financial support that they had previously denounced.