KAMPALA, Uganda — Uganda’s Parliament has become the focal point of a widening national debate over governance, economic control and constitutional authority, following the introduction of the controversial Protection of Sovereignty Bill 2026.
The proposed law, tabled on April 15 by David Muhoozi, is being presented by the government as a safeguard against undue foreign influence. However, critics argue it could significantly reshape the relationship between citizens and the state, while disrupting key economic flows.
The bill has been referred to parliamentary committees on defence and internal affairs, as well as legal and parliamentary affairs, for scrutiny. Its backing by the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) caucus signals strong executive support.
Yet opposition has been unusually widespread. According to submissions before the joint committee, a large majority of stakeholders, including civil society groups, professionals, academics and citizens, have rejected the proposal.
“The Protection of Sovereignty Bill has provoked unprecedented resistance, not merely from the everyday political actors in our political space but from the broad spectrum of Ugandan society and citizenry,” said Pariyo Dan.
He added that opposition to the bill reflects a rare national consensus. “In recent legislative history of Parliament, no single bill other than the age limit bill has attracted such sweeping and unified opposition from the general public,” he said.
“This wasn’t merely a matter of partisan disagreement; it was a matter of consolidated national consensus.”
“To proceed with this legislation in the face of such overwhelming public disapproval would be to act on a false mandate,” he said. “This bill is not wanted, it is not needed, and it will not serve the common good.”
At the centre of the controversy is the bill’s expansive definition of “foreigner,” which critics say could extend beyond non-citizens to include Ugandans living abroad, foreign organisations and entities registered outside the country.
The legislation would also grant the minister powers to designate individuals or institutions as “foreigners” through statutory instruments, raising fears over potential abuse.
Similarly, the definition of “agent of a foreigner” includes individuals or organisations engaged in political activity involving foreign-linked funding. Critics argue that this could bring advocacy groups, civil society actors and even political participants under heightened state scrutiny.
Leader of Opposition Joel Ssenyonyi has been among the bill’s most vocal critics, particularly regarding its potential impact on the Ugandan diaspora.
“These are Ugandans with families, businesses and investments back home,” he said.
“They pay school fees, they build homes, they participate in national development. Why should they be treated as foreigners whose voices are restricted?”
Uganda receives an estimated $2.5 billion annually in remittances—funds that play a crucial role in household incomes, education and healthcare.
Economists warn that additional regulatory burdens could discourage these inflows, with broader implications for the national economy.
“This law goes beyond politics; it touches the core of economic activity,” said Godber Tumushabe of the Great Lakes Institute for Strategic Studies.
“Banks, tourism operators, NGOs and businesses that rely on cross-border transactions will be directly affected.”
Legal experts have raised concerns that the bill could alter the constitutional balance of power. Uganda Law Society vice president Asiimwe Anthony argued that sovereignty, as defined by the Constitution, rests with the people.
“The bill effectively transfers sovereignty from the people to the executive,” he said.
“It empowers the minister and a yet-to-be-established security apparatus to determine what constitutes government interest and to punish dissent.”
He warned that such changes could require a referendum under constitutional provisions.
Prominent lawyer Phillip Karugaba also highlighted practical concerns, questioning how the law would apply to Ugandans abroad or institutions engaged in international work.
Academic institutions have also raised concerns. In a memorandum, Makerere University Academic Staff Association warned that the bill could disrupt international research collaborations, study programmes and funding partnerships.
“Research funding is already limited locally. Restricting international collaboration would cripple the sector,” the memorandum stated.
Also Read: Uganda tables sovereignty bill to regulate foreign influence
The government maintains that the bill is necessary to safeguard national interests. Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka defended the proposal, saying it aims to regulate—not block—foreign influence.
“Yes, Uganda needs aid, but not at any cost,” he said. “We must guard against funding that undermines our values or influences our national direction.”
He added: “We must carefully weigh growth against security. That balance is critical.”
The debate reflects a broader tension between economic openness and national control. Uganda remains deeply connected to global systems through trade, remittances, investment and diplomacy.
The fate of the Protection of Sovereignty Bill may ultimately define how the country balances these competing priorities, and how it interprets sovereignty in an increasingly interconnected world.
