By Luzinda Peter
April 26, 2026

KAMPALA — Uganda’s proposed Sovereignty Bill is drawing increasing scrutiny as it undergoes parliamentary committee review, with lawmakers, legal experts, civil society organizations, and sections of the business community expressing concern over its potential impact on governance, civil liberties, and the economy.

The proposed legislation, which seeks to regulate foreign influence in Uganda’s political, financial, and civic affairs, has sparked an intense national debate over the balance between protecting national sovereignty and safeguarding constitutional freedoms.

The bill was tabled before Parliament by the State Minister for Internal Affairs, David Muhoozi, and subsequently referred to the Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs together with the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee for detailed examination.

Parliamentary committees are expected to conduct clause-by-clause scrutiny before the legislation returns to the House for further debate and consideration.

According to reporting by Eagle Online, several legislators have already raised concerns regarding the broad language used in the bill, particularly around terms such as “foreign influence” and “external interference,” warning that vague definitions could create uncertainty in interpretation and enforcement.

Opposition legislator Medard Lubega Ssegona has previously argued during parliamentary debates on governance-related legislation that laws affecting fundamental rights must be grounded in extensive public consultation and accompanied by clear constitutional safeguards.

Civil society organizations have emerged among the strongest critics of the proposed law, warning that its current provisions could severely affect the operations of non-governmental organizations and advocacy groups.

“The Bill as drafted poses a direct and existential threat to the operations of Civil Society Organizations,”
— Civil society submission during parliamentary consultation

Legal advocacy groups have also questioned whether the legislation could end up undermining the very sovereignty it claims to protect.

“Whereas the Bill purports to protect sovereignty, it undermines it,”
— Mohamad Ndifuna

Human rights observers have similarly expressed fears that the legislation could further restrict civic space and dissent if enacted without stronger legal protections.

“The Protection of Sovereignty Bill is the latest example of efforts to stifle dissent,”
— Oryem Nyeko

Constitutional lawyers and governance experts have also raised alarm over the broader implications of the proposed framework. Isaac Ssemakadde argued that the bill risks shifting power away from citizens rather than defending their sovereignty.

“It does not protect sovereignty; it destroys it—the people’s right to self-determination,”
— Isaac Ssemakadde

The private sector remains divided on the legislation’s potential economic impact.

Business analyst Nyanzi Martin Luther said the bill could benefit indigenous enterprises if implemented in a way that prioritizes local economic empowerment and reduces excessive dependence on foreign-controlled sectors.

“Ugandan businesses stand to gain if the law prioritises local capacity and reduces overdependence on external influence in key sectors,” Nyanzi said. “It can create a more balanced and competitive environment for indigenous firms.”

However, economists and trade analysts have warned that unclear provisions governing foreign-linked transactions, investment structures, and compliance obligations could generate uncertainty for investors and businesses engaged in cross-border trade.

Stakeholders have also voiced concern over what they describe as limited public awareness and consultation surrounding the proposed legislation, cautioning that inadequate citizen engagement could weaken public trust in the legislative process.

As parliamentary committees continue reviewing the bill, the proposed Sovereignty Bill has become one of Uganda’s most contentious legislative proposals this year, exposing growing tensions between national security objectives and concerns over democratic accountability, civil liberties, and economic stability.