Uganda’s Protection of Sovereignty Bill (often referred to as the Protection of Sovereignty Bill 2026 is a proposed piece of legislation aimed at regulating foreign influence and funding. It has drawn significant criticism from civil society organizations, activists, and legal minds due to several contentious clauses aimed at shrinking civil space.
The Bill according to its promoter is primarily rooted in the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, specifically aiming to operationalize Article 1(1), which states that all power belongs to the people. Why do I think the promoters of the Bill invoked the wrong article of the constitution. While traditionally absolute, modern sovereignty often involves voluntary limitations.
This bill is also running side by side with the NGO Funding Bill, 2026. The NGO Funding Bill allegedly sets out a range of policy goals, including reducing dependence on foreign funding, promoting literacy and social development, lowering operational costs for organizations, strengthening accountability, and safeguarding national sovereignty.
How do we expect to protect our sovereignty with all the international laws, treaties, conventions, and global cooperation agreements we have signed. For the 2025/2026 financial year, the government planned for about, 13.41 trillion in total external financing, comprising both project loans and budget support, out of a total budget of 72.3 trillion Uganda shillings.
With our bloated expenditure not supported by revenue collections, achieving sovereignty is a bluff. An old adage of “he who pays the piper calls the tune” comes in handy. We all know that the person or entity providing funding for an endeavor holds the power to control. It emphasizes that financial control gives one authority over decisions, actions, and directions.
The concept of sovereignty is heavily influenced by the work of Jean Bodin, who is regarded as the “father” of the theory of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the supreme authority, power, and autonomy a state has to govern itself, its territory, and its inhabitants without external interference. It represents ultimate decision-making power, often codified in constitutions, and can refer to either national authority or individual self-determination. In Uganda however, sovereignty is a fallacy.
It is a well within our knowledge that the government of Uganda cannot sustain itself without external funding. How come they want to restrict the operation of NGOs through controlled funding. Critics of the bill say the proposed law is designed to shrink civic space, silence opposition, and limit the independence of organizations that rely on foreign funding to operate optimally.
Besides having been designed in bad faith, the bill provides for very high penalties and long prison sentences for persons found guilty of promoting foreign interests against Uganda, or acting as an unregistered “agent of a foreigner,” and that they can face up to 20 years in prison or fines of up to 2 billion Uganda shillings which money is not affordable.
The foregoing sentence alone is vague in so far as it gives government an open cheque to take action against an individual even on mere suspicion as its definition of agent or foreigner is too broad. The bill applies to any person or organization “directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized by a foreign person or entity.
Again, this definition is viewed as vague and covers many local NGOs, CBOs, and activists, bringing them under intense state scrutiny as it appears to target foreign funds and assets purchased or built using undisclosed external funders. This may appear as if it will only affect opposition political parties and civil society entities but may also affect religious institutions many of which are registered as NGOs and or companies limited by guarantee.
The Bill threatens to severely restrict religious institutions, especially those relying on foreign funding for charity, education, or healthcare with risks of fines or closure for non-compliance. The bill is expected to face resistance, with critics viewing it as part of a repressive legal regime that stifles civic and religious space, even when the bill is tagged to protect national security.
The bill further seeks to authorize the government to seize foreign funds or assets linked to violations. For example, funding obtained without proper approval or used for activities deemed against national interests. Again, the words “deemed against national interests” is yet another vague statement for the government to define according to its interest.
Further, the government wants to use this bill to have exclusive monopoly to determine which foreign entities work with local NGOs even when the work they do is deemed critical. By doing this, organizations shall be restricted from receiving foreign funding for activities deemed to interfere with elections, government operations, or economic stability. This could cripple NGOs working on governance, human rights, and democracy in Uganda.
The bill is also intended to give the Minister of Internal Affairs unlimited and Powers which are usually prone to abuse. If this bill is passed into law in its current form., the government will have discretionary power to approve or disapprove foreign funding, revoke registrations, and declare individuals or organizations as “foreign agents,” with minimal independent oversight.
In an effort to shrink civil space, the Bill makes it mandatory for Political parties or NGOS to disclose every material detail about foreign funding and, in some cases, disclose personal information about employees within strict timelines. The legislation is also designed to make fundraising and political activities by Ugandans living abroad in support of local groups (“agents”) a prosecutable offense. This provision will create un necessary panic and fear.
Critics, including civil society organizations, have raised concerns the bill as a tool for suppressing dissent and regulating NGOs, rather than solely protecting national sovereignty. The bill is being introduced to Parliament for consideration amidst questions regarding its impact on democracy and freedoms and the motive of the promoters. I can see numerous law petitions being filed in the constitutional court challenging the bill once passed into law.
You can imagine that even before the bill is scrutinized, the NRM parliamentary caucus has already promised to support the passing of the draconian legislation into a law. I have no doubts in my mind that this piece will take away the sovereignty of the people and hand it over to government. I believe the bill is framed in bad faith and is unconstitutional as it infringes upon freedom of expression and association which rights are also guaranteed under the same constitution.
In whichever name the law will be passed such as Sovereignty protection Act, Protection of National Sovereignty, National Security Act, Foreign Agent Act, Foreign Interference Countermeasures Act or even the protection of Sovereignty Act, the law is not called for. Issues of foreign financial inflows are already regulated by the Financial Intelligence Authority established under the Anti-Money Laundering Act.
As a government agency, the Financial Intelligence Authority works to monitor, investigate, and prevent illicit financing, money laundering and terrorism financing by analyzing financial disclosures from accountable persons and disseminating intelligence to competent authorities. What more does the government want, what mischief do they want to cure?
Wadada Rogers is a commentator on political, legal and social issues. wadroger@yahoo.ca
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at Submit an Article
