Uganda: Parliament Strengthens Sovereignty Bill with Key Amendments
Parliament of Uganda passed the Protection of Sovereignty Bill on Tuesday, May 5, 2026, implementing significant amendments aimed at refining its scope and aligning it with constitutional standards. The revised legislation, which had previously sparked public concern due to its controversial clauses, was debated during a plenary session led by Speaker Anita Among.
Legislative Developments and Key Amendments
The Minister of State for Internal Affairs, Hon. David Muhoozi, presented the motion, emphasizing the necessity for Uganda to safeguard its self-governance amidst various challenges. The Chairperson of the Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs, Hon. Wilson Kajwengye, noted that the review process involved consultations with over 200 stakeholders, including government bodies, civil society, and the private sector.
The amendments primarily focus on narrowing the application of the law to agents of foreigners, eliminating earlier provisions that broadly targeted any individual. Clause 2 was revised to specifically address those acting on behalf of foreign interests in political and public decision-making contexts. The definition of “foreigner” was also refined to exclude Ugandan citizens residing abroad.
Changes to Ministerial Powers and Financial Regulations
The revised bill diminishes the minister’s discretionary powers, removing provisions that permitted the declaration of any individual as a foreigner. This shift aims to prevent the establishment of a permission-based system that could undermine legal certainty and constitutional protections.
In a notable policy change, the bill now requires agents of foreigners to declare their funding rather than seeking prior approval, a move intended to facilitate financial flows and maintain economic stability. The amended law also includes exemptions for key sectors such as financial institutions, academic bodies, and health facilities, ensuring that lawful financial activities, including diaspora remittances and foreign direct investment, remain protected.
Criminal Provisions and Public Concerns
Parliament revised the criminal provisions within the bill, introducing clearer definitions of offenses and requiring proof of intent. Penalties have been reduced from a maximum of 20 years to 10 years of imprisonment. Controversial measures, such as mandatory health examinations for applicants and inspection powers without court orders, were also removed.
Clause 13 of the bill specifically addresses economic sabotage, imposing fines of Shs2 billion for legal entities and Shs1 billion for individuals, or a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment for violations.
Despite these amendments, dissenting opinions emerged from several Members of Parliament. Hon. Jonathan Odur (UPC, Erute County South) expressed concerns regarding the process, alleging that amendments were predominantly introduced by the Attorney General rather than the bill’s original proponents. He claimed that the committee’s co-chairpersons displayed bias, silencing opposition voices during discussions.
Opposition Voices and Constitutional Concerns
Hon. Wilfred Niwagaba (Ndorwa County East) criticized the bill for potentially infringing on free speech and violating Article 1 of the Constitution, which safeguards the sovereignty of the people. Similarly, Hon. Gilbert Olanya (Kilak South County) argued that the bill contradicts constitutional principles and poses risks to civil liberties and Uganda’s international reputation.
Hon. Abdallah Kiwanuka (NUP, Mukono County North) highlighted that the extent of amendments—estimated at 87 percent—exceeded acceptable limits, while Hon. Medard Sseggona (Busiro County East) called for broader public engagement during the legislative process, deeming the bill redundant in addressing existing issues.
The Leader of the Opposition, Hon. Joel Ssenyonyi, raised procedural concerns regarding the treatment of minority reports, questioning the allocation of time for dissenting opinions. He also referenced a letter allegedly from the President disavowing the bill, arguing that the amendments had fundamentally altered its original intent.
The Speaker of Parliament maintained that the amendments did not change the bill’s core objectives.
Source: www.zawya.com
Read all the latest developments and breaking updates in the Latest News section.
Published on 2026-05-06 22:49:00 • By the Editorial Desk
