27th April, 2026

Hon Chairperson,

 

Honorable Members of Parliament,

The proposed Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, arrives at a critical juncture in Uganda’s history. While officially framed as a shield against foreign interference thereby arousing patriotic sentiments, a rigorous analysis reveals it to be a redundant and dangerous legislative overreach. Uganda possesses a robust legal framework—including the NGO Act (2016), the Anti-Money Laundering Act (2013), the Anti-Terrorism Act (2002), The Penal Code Act and various national security laws—capable of addressing any legitimate external threats. It is a legislative tool for executive overreach, political control, and constitutional regression. It is unnecessary, duplicative, vague, and fundamentally hostile to Uganda’s democratic future.

This Bill adds no value to the governance of the country; instead, it serves as a calculated vehicle to overthrow the spirit of the 1995 Constitution, shifting power away from the people and consolidating it within unchecked executive and military agencies.

This Bill is part of a global “authoritarian blueprint” designed to dismantle independent oversight. By labeling domestic critics, the diaspora, and humanitarian actors as “foreign agents,” the Bill mirrors repressive legislative packages used in Russia, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan to criminalize dissent.

1. THE BILL IS FOUNDED ON A FALSE PREMISE

The claim that Uganda lacks a legal framework to protect sovereignty is incorrect. The Constitution already vests power in the people (Article 1) and establishes its supremacy (Article 2). The Bill merely restates existing provisions without addressing the real issue—selective enforcement.

Clause 5 of this Bill merely restates what is already constitutionally guaranteed.

Parliament does not legislate constitutional repetition for political convenience.

Uganda is already sovereign under law.

 

2. DUPLICATION OF EXISTING LAWS

Uganda already has laws regulating financial flows, political activity, national security, and civil society operations, including:

1. The Anti-Money Laundering Act, which regulates suspicious transactions, illicit financial flows, and unlawful foreign funding;
2. The Political Parties and Organizations Act, which clearly provides for political party financing, accountability, and disclosure obligations;
3. The Electoral Commission Act, which addresses electoral integrity and unlawful political interference;
4. The Anti-Terrorism Act, which criminalises support for activities that threaten national security;
5. The NGO Act, 2016, which regulates registration, transparency, and operations of civil society organizations;
6. The Public Finance Management Act, which governs foreign funding to government institutions;
7. And the Constitution itself, which already safeguards sovereignty, democratic participation, and institutional accountability.

This Bill creates no new value. It duplicates existing provisions and manufactures a legal gap that does not exist.

3. GOVERNMENT ITSELF DEPENDS ON FOREIGN FUNDING

There is a paradox created by the bill wherein, government seeks to criminalise and heavily restrict foreign funding for citizens, civil society, and political actors, while excluding the proposed bill’s application to government sources of financing as is indicated in clause 24. This is a self centered move by government as it seeks to legitimately continue to deal with foreigners to get finance while denying citizens from accessing the same opportunities especially Civil society organisations and NGOs which support many citizens. We must take legislative notice of the fact that all the donors who fund government also have their conditions and therefore that amounts to foreign influence. Government remains heavily dependent on foreign aid, grants, concessional loans, and donor financing for its own operations.

Last week an UGX 84.39 Trn budget was passed with a revenue projection of UGX 57.84Trn. This is already indicating that “foreign” sources of money will finance out national budget. If foreign financing is genuinely a threat to sovereignty, then government must begin with itself.

Uganda continues to rely on external financing amounting to approximately 5–6 trillion shillings annually across health, education, infrastructure, humanitarian support, agriculture, and public administration.

If that foreign support does not come through, the economy loses a critical fiscal buffer, public services collapse, and government itself becomes unsustainable.

It is therefore dishonest for the State to celebrate foreign funding when it enters government accounts, but criminalise it when it reaches opposition parties, NGOs, youth organizations, independent institutions and individual citizens of Uganda.

The hidden agenda of this bill is not about sovereignty, it is about controlling who receives support and who remains politically viable.

4. DANGEROUS AND BROAD DEFINITIONS

(a) “Agent of a Foreigner”

The definition of “agent of a foreigner” is recklessly broad, extending to employees, representatives, servants, and persons directly or indirectly financed by foreigners.

In a country facing severe youth unemployment, where thousands survive through donor-funded institutions, scholarships, scholary research, international employment, and diaspora-linked opportunities, this definition criminalises survival.

Young Ugandans working for international organizations, development agencies, civil society groups, research institutions (Universities), and donor-supported projects including some churches all be labelled foreign agents.

Honorable Members, laws must punish criminal conduct—not economic survival.

    (b) “Foreigner”

Even more constitutionally offensive is the definition of “foreigner,” which includes Ugandan citizens residing outside Uganda. Imagine, labeling you a foreigner simply because you’ve chosen to stay in Dubai for a while!!!

This is an attempt to divest citizens of their natural citizenship rights which are God given. A Ugandan does not stop being one because they are at any given time absent physically from Uganda.

The inclusion of Ugandans in the diaspora as “foreigners” is unconstitutional and undermines citizenship rights. A Ugandan does not lose their identity by residing abroad. This is punitive and unrealistic.

It punishes the freedom of movement and this directly violates Article 15 of the Constitution and undermines Uganda’s obligations under international treaties such as the East African Community Treaty regarding freedom of movement and association.

This declassification of citizens as foreigners is a clear demonstration of how retrogressive this proposed legislation is. This is a matter many progressive countries dealt with centuries ago for instance in 1963 an American court in the case of Kennedy V Mendoza- Martinez (372 US) dealt with the issue of a citizen losing citizenship because of remaining outside the jurisdiction of America for a specific period. The court held among others that a citizen is free to reside abroad without suffering the loss of citizenship.

Hon members, this is a matter that USA was grappling with in 1963 and today in 2026, we have before us a law that will pretty much do what a court in the USA dealt with in 1963. How much more retrogressive can this law be? No wonder we are indeed still dancing paka chini while others are going to the moon.

 

Reject this law as it takes Uganda so many years back. 

5. CONTRADICTION WITH OTHER LEGISLATION

Hon members, we draw your attention to the provisions of the income tax act cap 340 wherein the issue of ‘residence’ and ‘foreigner’ for tax purposes is legislated upon. In section 9 of the act, a resident individual is defined as one who has a permanent home in Uganda and is present in Uganda for a given number of days, among others.

The proposed bill defines a foreigner to include a Ugandan citizen residing outside Uganda.

To operationalize the income tax act provisions, URA has made it mandatory for Ugandans living abroad to file tax returns of their year of income and pay tax in Uganda.

We find it incomprehensibly contradictory that government on the one hand refers to the same category of citizens as foreigners and wants to further restrict their remittances back home while on the other hand, taxing them as resident individuals under the income tax act. These individuals since they are “foreign” and their source of income is foreign and the income tax act clearly states in the definition section that foreign source income means any income which is not derived from sources of Uganda so there is logically no obligation for these “foreigners” to pay tax in Uganda. We foresee a lacuna here which demonstrates this law was not thoroughly thought through.

6. UNECESSARY BUREAUCRACY

The proposed bill introduces many unnecessary bureaucracies which are harmful for businesses and individuals. The requirement to get a license from the minister for a threshold of UGX 400m is a claw back to the dark days in 1970s where the minister of finance had to give clearance to access foreign exchange. The late Hon Joyce Mpanga was one of the victims of abused discretion and bureaucracy.

We urge you Hon members not to harm innocent Ugandans by passing such a law and enabling overreach by the state into managing the lives of individuals.

6. ATTACK ON MULTIPARTY DEMOCRACY

The Bill restricts political party financing and subjects it to executive approval. This undermines Article 72 and weakens opposition viability.

Political competition cannot exist where access to resources is controlled by the executive. Regulation must not become suppression.

7. VIOLATION OF FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

The Bill directly violates Articles 29, 43, and 72 of the Constitution.

Freedom of speech, expression, assembly, association, political participation, and press freedom are constitutional rights—not ministerial concessions.

Clauses 5 to 13 criminalise vague and undefined concepts such as:

1. Promoting foreign interests
2. Interfering with government operations
3. Influencing policy
4. Economic sabotage
5. Disruptive activities

Clause 13 criminalises publication of information deemed capable of weakening the economy.

• Would exposing corruption amount to economic sabotage?
• Would opposing reckless borrowing become interference?
• A criminal law founded on ambiguity is not law—it is intimidation and largely offends the legality principle in Article 28.

Article 43 permits limitation of rights only where demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.

This Bill fails that constitutional test entirely.

8. SUPPRESSION OF YOUTH AND CIVIC SPACE

Part III imposes severe registration and disclosure burdens on youth-led organizations, student movements, pressure groups, and civic initiatives.

Any youth organization engaged in governance advocacy, civic education, leadership training, entrepreneurship, scholarships, or donor-supported programming may be compelled to register as an “agent of a foreigner.”

The result will be fear, disengagement, and democratic silence to our largest population group in this country-the youth.

Uganda cannot claim to empower youth while criminalizing youth participation.

Any government that fears student leaders and youth voices has already admitted political failure.

 

CONCLUSION

Hon members,

The Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, represents a calculated effort to overthrow the 1995 Constitution. It follows a documented global “authoritarian blueprint” where the rhetoric of “protecting sovereignty” is used to destroy popular sovereignty. If passed, Uganda will join the ranks of nations like Nicaragua, Georgia, and North Korea, where the state views its own citizens and their international partners as internal enemies. To protect the stability of our nation and our hard-earned freedoms, this Bill must be rejected in its entirety.

Uganda does not require this Bill, we reject the Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026 in its entirety and call upon this House to refuse its passage.

I so submit.

 

Patrick Oboi Amuriat – POA

Party President,

Forum for Democratic Change (FDC)