EXPLAINER: Key Changes Parliament Made to the Sovereignty Bill Before Passing It

The Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026 entered Parliament as one of the most far-reaching and controversial pieces of legislation in recent years.When it was first tabled for its First Reading on April 13, the bill immediately raised concerns among opposition politicians, lawyers, civil society organisations, business groups, and Ugandans living abroad.Critics argued that its wording was broad enough to potentially criminalise ordinary civic, political, and financial activities.Government, however, defended the proposal as necessary to protect Uganda from foreign interference in domestic affairs.Supporters of the bill argued that foreign actors increasingly influence politics, governance debates, and public policy through funding, lobbying, and organised campaigns, making stronger legal safeguards necessary.But the original draft quickly faced backlash over its broad definitions of both “foreigners” and “agents of foreigners.” Critics, including the World Bank and Bank of Uganda, warned that the bill could create legal uncertainty for NGOs, media organisations, churches, businesses, activists, political parties, and even Ugandans in the diaspora.The criticism eventually pushed Parliament to make major amendments before passing the final version on Tuesday, May 5.One of the most disputed sections in the original bill was the definition of a “foreigner.” Clause 1 initially classified “a Ugandan citizen residing outside Uganda” as a foreigner.That wording alarmed diaspora communities because it appeared to treat Ugandans living abroad as external actors under the law.Parliamentary committees later removed the provision entirely. In the version passed by Parliament, Ugandan citizens living abroad are no longer considered foreigners. The law now applies only to non-citizens, foreign governments, and organisations incorporated outside Uganda.Uganda heavily depends on diaspora remittances, which contribute billions of shillings to the economy annually. According to the Economic Policy Research Centre, Uganda receives about $2.5 billion each year from remittances sent by Ugandans abroad.Under the passed bill, remittances, foreign direct investment, humanitarian aid, and trade-related financial inflows are protected.Another major controversy focused on the definition of an “agent of a foreigner.”In the original draft, a person could qualify as an agent if their activities were “directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidised by a foreigner.”Critics argued that such wording could affect nearly any Ugandan organisation or individual receiving foreign support, even if they were not involved in politics.NGOs funded by donors, media houses supported through international grants, researchers working with foreign institutions, and community organisations backed by international partners could all potentially fall under that definition.The final version significantly narrowed the definition. Instead of broadly focusing on financing or supervision, the passed bill now links the definition of an agent specifically to activities outlined under Clause 2. This means a person only becomes an agent if they engage in regulated political activities described in the law.At the same time, Parliament expanded and clarified what qualifies as “political activities.”In the original draft, Clause 2 generally prohibited people from carrying out political activities in Uganda on behalf of foreign interests but gave limited detail about what those activities included.The amended version now clearly states that political activities include attempts to influence legislation, funding or campaigning for political parties or candidates, and actions aimed at influencing how Uganda is governed.Supporters of the bill argued that the clarification was necessary because foreign influence often operates indirectly through lobbying, political financing, and governance campaigns rather than direct state interference.Parliament also revised the law’s scope and exemptions.The original draft had limited safeguards for organisations operating outside political spaces. Apart from diplomatic exemptions, there were few protections for humanitarian, religious, academic, or development-related work.This raised fears that ordinary NGO activities could become entangled in registration requirements or accusations of foreign political influence.

The final version introduced more specific exemptions intended to protect organisations not involved in political lobbying or attempts to influence state policy.The exemptions now cover financial institutions, academic and research organisations, health facilities, and individuals receiving funds for legitimate domestic or commercial purposes.Parliament also adopted recommendations exempting entities already regulated under existing laws, with committee members warning that the original draft risked duplicating existing legal frameworks.While the law still regulates representation of foreign interests in Uganda, lawmakers added safeguards intended to prevent the legislation from disrupting non-political activities.Financial oversight provisions were also heavily debated.The original bill proposed strict controls on foreign financial support. Clause 22 barred individuals or agents from receiving foreign support or loans exceeding twenty thousand currency points, roughly equivalent to Shs400 million, within a 12-month period without written approval from the minister.Officials from the Bank of Uganda warned that poorly structured restrictions could harm remittances, foreign exchange inflows, and investor confidence if ordinary international transactions became legally uncertain.In response, Parliament amended Clause 22 to require agents of foreigners to declare funds instead of seeking prior approval from the minister before receiving them.Lawmakers also reduced penalties under the law, cutting the maximum prison sentence from 20 years to 10 years.The final version additionally strengthened avenues for legal redress.Under the original draft, there was limited clarity on how people denied registration or approval could challenge those decisions.The amended Clause 18 now explicitly allows aggrieved individuals to challenge ministerial decisions in court, including appeals to the High Court.The change is widely seen as an effort to address concerns about unchecked administrative powers.Parliament also removed provisions requiring mandatory mental and physical health examinations for applicants, as well as inspection powers without court orders.Despite the amendments, debate surrounding the bill remains sharply divided.Supporters say Parliament successfully reshaped the legislation into a more focused national security law targeting foreign political interference rather than ordinary civic activity. They argue the final version closes loopholes that could allow foreign actors to influence Uganda’s governance and political direction.Critics, however, maintain that the law still grants broad powers to the state and contains definitions that could be interpreted widely during politically sensitive periods.It remains unclear whether President Yoweri Museveni will sign the bill into law in its current form or return it to Parliament for further amendments.