Da Dona
JF-Expert Member
- Dec 16, 2025
- 827
- 526
A heated debate has erupted in Parliament following the introduction of the Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, with several Members of Parliament (MPs) criticising both the content of the proposed law and the speed at which it is being processed.
State Minister for internal affairs, David Muhoozi presenting the bill - Daily monitor
The Bill was formally read for the first time in Parliament, marking the beginning of its legislative journey. However, instead of a routine introduction, it immediately triggered concern among lawmakers who warned that such a significant piece of legislation was being handled with unusual urgency.
At the heart of the controversy are the severe penalties proposed under the Bill. The legislation introduces punishments of up to 20 years in prison and fines running into billions of shillings for individuals and organisations found guilty of violating its provisions. It also seeks to impose strict regulations on foreign influence, including tighter controls on funding and operations of entities deemed to be acting on behalf of foreign interests.
While government maintains the Bill is intended to safeguard Uganda’s sovereignty from external interference, MPs across different political lines have pushed back, arguing that the law raises serious questions about civil liberties, economic activity, and governance.
A major point of contention has been the limited time allocated for MPs to study the Bill. Legislators warned that rushing such a complex and far-reaching law risks undermining Parliament’s role and could lead to gaps or unintended consequences. Some MPs expressed concern that the Bill could be fast-tracked without sufficient debate or public consultation, potentially compromising transparency.
Others questioned the broad scope of the legislation, warning that its provisions could affect not just organisations but also ordinary Ugandans, including those receiving financial support from abroad. There are growing fears that the definitions within the Bill may be too wide, potentially bringing NGOs, media houses, and even diaspora remittances under increased scrutiny.
Despite the backlash, the Bill has now been referred to the relevant parliamentary committee for further examination, where it is expected to face intense scrutiny and possible amendments.
The Bill was formally read for the first time in Parliament, marking the beginning of its legislative journey. However, instead of a routine introduction, it immediately triggered concern among lawmakers who warned that such a significant piece of legislation was being handled with unusual urgency.
At the heart of the controversy are the severe penalties proposed under the Bill. The legislation introduces punishments of up to 20 years in prison and fines running into billions of shillings for individuals and organisations found guilty of violating its provisions. It also seeks to impose strict regulations on foreign influence, including tighter controls on funding and operations of entities deemed to be acting on behalf of foreign interests.
While government maintains the Bill is intended to safeguard Uganda’s sovereignty from external interference, MPs across different political lines have pushed back, arguing that the law raises serious questions about civil liberties, economic activity, and governance.
A major point of contention has been the limited time allocated for MPs to study the Bill. Legislators warned that rushing such a complex and far-reaching law risks undermining Parliament’s role and could lead to gaps or unintended consequences. Some MPs expressed concern that the Bill could be fast-tracked without sufficient debate or public consultation, potentially compromising transparency.
Others questioned the broad scope of the legislation, warning that its provisions could affect not just organisations but also ordinary Ugandans, including those receiving financial support from abroad. There are growing fears that the definitions within the Bill may be too wide, potentially bringing NGOs, media houses, and even diaspora remittances under increased scrutiny.
Despite the backlash, the Bill has now been referred to the relevant parliamentary committee for further examination, where it is expected to face intense scrutiny and possible amendments.
