Criticism of NUP’s Participation in IPOD Funding
This article, penned by the Special Presidential Assistant-Press & Mobilisation/Deputy Press Secretary, Faruk Kirunda, critiques the National Unity Platform (NUP)’s approach to funding received through the inter-Party Organisation for dialog (IPOD). The core argument centers on the assertion that NUP initially refused to fully participate in IPOD’s activities – specifically dialogue and roundtable discussions aimed at policy shaping and representing diverse citizen interests – while simultaneously accepting allocated funding.
Kirunda alleges NUP treated the funding as an entitlement guaranteed by law, receiving money without fulfilling the expected obligations tied to it. He emphasizes that IPOD is intended as a framework to strengthen multiparty democracy in Uganda, with funding serving merely as “facilitation,” and not a primary objective.He points out that IPOD could function even without financial provisions, provided its core ideals are upheld.
The author raises concerns about NUP’s commitment to dialogue, questioning how meaningful engagement can occur without actively meeting with othre political parties. He suggests NUP’s perceived isolationist stance contradicts its stated goals of peaceful co-existence and de-escalation of political tensions. Kirunda further implies potential impropriety, questioning the accountability measures surrounding the funds received by NUP.
He reveals that calls were made for legal amendments to condition IPOD funding on demonstrable participation in the forum’s programs, a suggestion that wasn’t pursued with a demand for a refund. He characterizes NUP’s eventual decision to sign up to IPOD,after other parties received their funding,as motivated solely by financial gain,despite ongoing legal challenges to aspects of the relevant legislation (the Political Parties and Organisations Act,2005).
Kirunda contends that NUP’s actions demonstrate a prioritization of financial benefits over the responsibilities inherent in participating in a collaborative political environment. He argues that if a party chooses to abstain from dialogue and consensus-building, it should forgo the associated benefits, including fielding candidates and receiving government salaries.
The article concludes by highlighting the irony of NUP accepting IPOD funding while simultaneously raising grievances,such as alleged disappearances of its members,which could have been addressed within the IPOD framework.Kirunda suggests NUP’s pursuit of funding undermines the interests of its members and the Ugandan public,and reveals a focus on ”money power” rather than genuine political engagement.
Author Information:
Faruk Kirunda
Special Presidential Assistant-Press & Mobilisation/deputy Press Secretary
Email: faruk.kirunda@statehouse.go.ug
0776980486/0783990861
Source: watchdoguganda.com (as indicated at the end of the original text)
