Nyanzi Signals Major Changes to NGO Funding Bill After Civil Society Uproar

KAMPALA — What began as a youth-led campaign to secure government support for Uganda’s non-governmental organisations has now entered a new phase after its chief promoter, Nyanzi Martin Luther, bowed to mounting pressure from civil society leaders and announced plans to revise his proposed NGO Funding Bill.

The announcement follows weeks of criticism from activists, lawyers and governance advocates who questioned whether the proposal, in its original form, could inadvertently undermine the independence of the very organisations it sought to support.

In a statement posted on social media, Nyanzi revealed that the draft legislation would be amended and renamed before being formally submitted to Parliament.” We shall first amend it and also rename it to favour the civil society organisations, then our leader from my constituency will submit the petition to the Clerk’s office as the proceedings are with my signatures as required,” he said.

The proposed bill seeks to establish a National NGO Fund through which registered non-governmental organisations and community-based organisations would access financial support.

Nyanzi has repeatedly argued that many local organisations remain trapped in cycles of uncertainty because they rely heavily on foreign donors whose priorities often shift, resulting in funding disruptions and abandoned projects.

His proposal quickly attracted national attention, not only because of its ambitious scope but also because it was being championed by a young activist outside the traditional circles of government and civil society leadership.

However, what supporters viewed as a bold attempt to address funding challenges was seen differently by many within the NGO community. Critics argued that introducing direct government financing into the sector could create a conflict between financial dependence and institutional independence.

They warned that organisations receiving state funding could find it difficult to maintain their watchdog role, particularly when scrutinising government policies and public expenditure.

Among those who publicly challenged the proposal was Sarah Bireete, Executive Director of the Centre for Constitutional Governance, who cautioned against reforms that could restrict civic space or weaken the autonomy of civil society organisations.

Prominent lawyer Andrew Karamagi also weighed into the debate, describing NGOs as an indispensable part of Uganda’s governance and development landscape. He argued that any policy changes affecting the sector must protect its ability to operate independently and serve the public interest.

Activist Job Kiija questioned the logic of having government finance organisations that are often established to monitor governance failures and advocate for accountability.

“NGOs exist to fill the gaps left by the inefficiencies of government,” Kiija argued during discussions surrounding the proposal, warning that state funding could alter the relationship between civil society and public institutions.

Women’s rights advocate Sarah Mukasa raised concerns about what she described as the broader implications of increased government influence within the sector.

The controversy has unfolded against a backdrop of longstanding tensions between government and some civil society organisations. Over the years, NGOs have periodically clashed with authorities over issues ranging from regulation and registration requirements to governance advocacy and foreign funding.

As a result, Nyanzi’s proposal arrived in an environment where questions about civic freedoms and state oversight remain highly sensitive.Yet supporters of the initiative insist that the criticism should not overshadow the real challenges facing local organisations.

Many grassroots groups across Uganda continue to struggle with financial sustainability, particularly as international development assistance becomes increasingly competitive and donor priorities evolve.

Advocates of domestic financing argue that local organisations need more reliable funding streams if they are to maintain programmes in health, education, agriculture, youth empowerment and humanitarian assistance.

For some observers, the debate has highlighted a larger policy question: how can Uganda create sustainable funding mechanisms for civil society without compromising the independence that gives the sector its legitimacy?

Nyanzi’s decision to revise the proposal suggests he may be seeking an answer to that question through wider consultation and compromise.

Although details of the proposed amendments remain unclear, governance analysts say the changes could determine whether the initiative gains broader acceptance or faces continued resistance from the organisations it is intended to benefit.

The petition has not yet been formally submitted to Parliament, but the conversation it has sparked is unlikely to fade soon.

What started as a proposal on NGO financing has evolved into a wider national debate about donor dependence, civic space, accountability and the future relationship between government and civil society in Uganda.

For now, attention is turning to the revised draft and whether it can bridge the divide between those who see state support as a solution to chronic funding shortages and those who fear it could come at the cost of independence.