Africa-Press – Uganda. Outgoing Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago has strongly criticised the proposed Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, describing it as “the most ridiculous piece of legislation” and warning that it undermines the country’s constitutional principles.
Speaking during NBS Frontline on Thursday, Lukwago argued that the bill misinterprets the concept of sovereignty as enshrined in the Constitution. He emphasized that Uganda’s Constitution clearly establishes the sovereignty of its citizens, not merely the state.
“This legislation goes to the onus of the Constitution, which speaks to the sovereignty of citizens. This bill is talking about the sovereignty of Uganda, not the sovereignty of the people. The Constitution talks about the sovereignty of the people,” he said.
Lukwago further criticized the bill as vague and potentially misleading, arguing that its provisions fail to clearly define key terms such as “foreign interests.” According to him, existing legal frameworks already adequately address issues related to national stability and external influence.
His concerns were echoed by Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda, the outgoing Member of Parliament for Kira Municipality and spokesperson for the People’s Front for Freedom (PFF) who warned that the bill risks duplicating existing laws, particularly in the area of financial regulation.
“The Sovereignty Bill deals majorly with the movement of money. We already have many other laws regulating financing. There is no need for another law for that. This bill is coming mainly to regulate political funding,” he said.
Ssemujju also raised concerns about legislators who may support the bill without fully understanding its implications, cautioning that Ugandans shouldn’t stop at understanding content of bills.
However, on the other hand, Chris Baryomunsi, Minister for Information and Communications Technology and National Guidance, defended the proposed legislation, stating that it is essential for safeguarding Uganda’s independence and decision-making authority.
“This bill is good. We are talking about the sovereignty of Ugandans. Uganda is not trees; it is Ugandans. Sovereignty is the power we should have as Ugandans to make decisions for ourselves,” he said.
Responding to Lukwago’s claims that the bill is unconstitutional, Baryomunsi challenged him to seek legal redress through the courts.
“The Constitutional Court is a few meters away from here. You can go and challenge it,” he said.
“Are you saying that the lawyers in the Attorney General’s office don’t know what they are doing?”
The Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, tabled by State Minister for Internal Affairs General David Muhoozi, seeks to extends its reach into digital platforms, placing online activism, civic engagement, and advocacy under regulatory oversight.
It introduces mandatory registration with a designated department under the Ministry of Internal Affairs, alongside extensive vetting procedures covering identity, financial records, professional associations, and other personal disclosures.
Financial restrictions are also central to the proposed law. It introduces a cap of approximately Shs 400 million in annual foreign funding without prior ministerial approval, alongside mandatory reporting obligations for financial institutions handling transactions linked to affected entities.
Under the framework, banks and money transfer services would be required to submit monthly reports on relevant transactions, while foreign-funded organisations would face additional scrutiny when operating in key sectors such as education, health, water, and infrastructures.
The Bill also introduces strict approval requirements, including Cabinet authorisation for foreign-funded actors seeking to operate in designated sectors.
A major point of contention is the introduction of new criminal offences, including “economic sabotage,” defined as publishing or disseminating information deemed to undermine Uganda’s economic stability or mobilising opposition to government policy without approval.
Penalties under the proposed law are severe, with individuals facing up to 20 years in prison, while organisations risk multi-billion-shilling fines and possible confiscation of funds deemed contrary to national interests.
Government officials have defended the Bill as a necessary instrument to protect Uganda from foreign interference and covert influence operations, framing it as part of a broader national sovereignty and security strategy.
Despite that justification, the Bill has triggered widespread concern among civil society organisations, legal analysts, and development practitioners, who warn that its broad definitions and expansive reach could restrict freedom of expression, association, and access to information.
Critics have particularly pointed to the ambiguity surrounding offences such as “economic sabotage,” warning that the lack of clear thresholds could expose journalists, researchers, and citizens engaged in public commentary to criminal liability.
There are also concerns that the funding restrictions and compliance requirements could disrupt donor-supported programmes, particularly in sectors heavily reliant on international partnerships.
Economists and development stakeholders have cautioned that the regulatory burden may deter investment and complicate implementation of externally funded projects in critical service delivery areas.
Despite the criticism, the political environment in Parliament appears strongly aligned in favour of the Bill. The ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) holds a commanding majority of more than 350 Members of Parliament, supported by independents who often vote with government positions.
That numerical advantage significantly reduces the likelihood of legislative defeat, particularly after party members reportedly consolidated their position during a retreat in Kyankwanzi, where MPs pledged support for the Bill.
Parliamentary leadership is also seen as reinforcing the government’s legislative agenda.
For More News And Analysis About Uganda Follow Africa-Press
