ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa has filed two submissions to Uganda’s parliament in response to the Protection of Sovereignty Bill 2026, currently under consideration. We are deeply concerned that the bill will significantly curtail freedom of expression, association, and civic participation under the guise of protecting national sovereignty. In its current form, the bill is fundamentally flawed and raises serious constitutional and human rights concerns. We urge the Ugandan parliament to withdraw the bill in its entirety.
The Cabinet approved the bill after the State Minister for Internal Affairs, General David Muhoozi, formally tabled it before parliament on 15 April 2026, and it has since been referred to the Committees on Defence and Internal Affairs and Legal and Parliamentary Affairs for scrutiny. It seeks to regulate foreign funding and curb activities deemed to threaten Uganda’s sovereignty. However, since its introduction, the bill has attracted widespread criticism from civil society organisations and activists, who warn that it risks undermining constitutional rights and disrupting livelihoods, including through its potential impact on families and individuals who receive financial support from the Ugandan diaspora. ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa shares the concerns and sentiments expressed by these actors.
In our submissions, ARTICLE 19 detailed legal and policy analysis to the Parliament of Uganda outlining these concerns. However, based on the breadth and severity of the issues identified, we reiterate that the bill is irredeemably problematic and should be withdrawn in its entirety.
Our analysis shows that the bill is not narrowly targeted at addressing genuine foreign interference. Instead, it introduces a broad and punitive framework that risks criminalising legitimate civic activity and placing civil society under extensive state control.
Key problematic provisions include:
The bill adopts an excessively broad definition of an ‘agent of a foreigner’ (Clauses 1 and 2), extending to individuals and organisations engaged in advocacy, research, journalism, or public discourse, particularly where there is any form of foreign funding or foreign connection. In practice, this risks treating ordinary civic engagement as a matter of national security concern.
The bill further criminalises protected expression (Clauses 2(2)(g), 5, and 13), including influencing public opinion against government policy, promoting so-called ‘foreign interests,’ and publishing information deemed to harm the economy. These provisions are vague and undefined, failing to meet basic standards of legal certainty. They create a real risk of being used to target journalists, civil society actors, and individuals expressing dissenting views. The penalties attached, including up to 20 years’ imprisonment, are clearly disproportionate.
The bill places significant restrictions on civic participation in governance (Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 10). By limiting who can develop, influence, or implement public policy, and under what conditions, it effectively sidelines civil society from public affairs. This undermines principles of participation, transparency, and accountability.
The regulatory regime for civil society (Clauses 14-20) introduces mandatory registration backed by criminal sanctions, alongside broad discretionary powers for the Internal Affairs Minister to approve, deny, suspend, or revoke registration. The absence of clear criteria and independent oversight creates a system that is highly vulnerable to abuse and political interference.
Restrictions on access to funding (Clause 22) are particularly concerning. The requirement for prior ministerial approval for foreign funding above a set threshold places undue control over civil society resources in the hands of the executive. Given the reliance of many organisations on international funding, this provision risks undermining their ability to operate effectively.
The bill also establishes extensive financial reporting, surveillance, and inspection powers (Clauses 21, 25-26, and 28) without adequate judicial safeguards. These measures raise serious concerns about privacy, due process, and the potential for misuse against civil society actors.
Taken together, these provisions do not reflect a proportionate or rights-compliant response to concerns about foreign influence. Rather, they create a framework that is likely to chill expression, restrict association, and narrow civic space.
For these reasons, ARTICLE 19 calls for the withdrawal of the bill in its entirety. Any future legislative effort should be grounded in Uganda’s constitutional guarantees and international human rights obligations and developed through an open and consultative process.
ARTICLE 19 remains available to support the development of a framework that protects national interests while safeguarding the rights to freedom of expression, assembly, and association.