Government tables revised Sovereignty bill; MPs still skeptical

• Government has introduced amendments to exempt banks, schools, hospitals and religious institutions from the Bill.

• The revised law focuses on regulating foreign involvement in political activities.

• MPs argue the definitions are too broad and could undermine democracy and civil liberties.

Government has tabled revised amendments to the controversial Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, in hope to address widespread criticism, but Members of Parliament remain unconvinced, warning that the proposed law could still undermine democratic freedoms and economic stability.

Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka presented the amendments on April 30, 2026, before Parliament’s Joint Committee of Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and the Defence and Internal Affairs Committee, saying the revisions were informed by concerns raised by the public and stakeholders.

Among the major changes, the Attorney General proposed exemptions for financial institutions supervised by the Central Bank, as well as medical, education and faith-based organisations.

He explained that regulated institutions such as banks would not be affected when receiving foreign funding for their licensed operations.

“For example, a bank… if it receives money from a foreigner, it is not for those activities that are set out in the Bill, it is for lending,” Kiwanuka said.

He added that the law would also not apply to funding received by health facilities for medical services, academic institutions for research and education, or religious organisations for activities aligned with their missions.

The revised Bill further clarifies that lawful foreign inflows such as foreign direct investment, diaspora remittances, export proceeds, trade finance and humanitarian assistance would not be restricted.

Kiwanuka told MPs that the Bill is now strictly targeted at regulating foreign involvement in political activities.

These include funding or supporting candidates, political parties, campaigns, or any actions aimed at influencing elections, government policy or decision-making.

He also said the law would cover activities intended to influence public opinion or promote ideologies deemed inconsistent with Uganda’s Constitution, culture or norms.

“For activities to be deemed political, those will be activities aimed at influencing the will and consent of the people of Uganda to determine who shall govern them and how they shall be governed and any activities aimed at influencing, imposing or normalising ideologies which are inconsistent with the constitution or which are inconsistent with the culture, customs and norms of any communities listed in the third schedule of the constitution,” he said

Despite the amendments, several legislators said the revised Bill still raises serious constitutional and political concerns.

Bugiri Municipality MP Asuman Basalirwa warned that the definition of political activity is too broad and could cripple multiparty democracy.

“You are in effect killing activities of political parties… What is wrong with influencing enactment of legislation? What is criminal with influencing policy?” Basalirwa asked.

Erute South MP Jonathan Odur criticised government for failing to consult key institutions during the drafting process, including the Bank of Uganda and the Uganda Human Rights Commission, both of which previously expressed reservations.

“It appeared to me that in drafting this bill, there was no consultation, even within government,” Odur said.

Mukono Municipality MP Betty Nambooze called for fresh public hearings to allow stakeholders to review the new amendments.

“Wouldn’t it be proper that we reopen the public hearing to get to know what stakeholders think about these changes?” she asked.

Soroti City Woman MP Anna Adeke argued that the amendments are so extensive that they effectively amount to a new law, raising concerns about the definition of a “foreigner.”

“You no longer need to leave the country to be declared a foreigner… I found that the most deplorable,” she said.

Shadow Attorney General Wilfred Niwagaba went further, urging government to withdraw the Bill entirely and redraft it.

He questioned whether the law truly addresses sovereignty or merely seeks to protect state authority.

“When you look at it, there is nothing in it that touches the sovereignty of the people of Uganda,” Niwagaba said.

He suggested renaming it the “Protection of the State Authority Bill” to better reflect its intent.