By Phillip Karugaba
Government finally awoke to the realisation that the Protection of Sovereignty Bill did not say what they thought it said, that they had cast their net far too wide and caught far more than they had intended to.
It took the unprecedented appearance of the Governor of the Bank of Uganda, Michael Atingi-Ego, before the Parliamentary Committees, and his dire warning that Uganda was about to shoot itself in both feet, for the proverbial penny to drop. Add to this the President’s public disavowal of the Bill, redirecting the focus of his team to the much narrower area of what he termed “sovereignty of policy-decision making.”
Government has now proposed amendments to the Bill, completely reshaping its focus, scope, and application. Engagement in political activities with foreign money is now the central concern. Full credit to the government team and the barrels of midnight oil they burned.
With 18 out of the 30 clauses amended, five new definitions introduced, the key definitions of “foreigner” and “agent of a foreigner” completely revamped, and exemptions granted left, right and centre to almost anyone, this is not the same Bill anymore. From a net cast too wide to a net cast away! Indeed, many of those previously unnerved by the Bill may now sit back and eat their chicken with a sigh of relief. Even political parties and NGOs have an escape hatch as regulated entities. For all these massive changes, Government has not updated the memorandum of the Bill nor its much-criticised certificate of financial implications.
Critical players still in the eye of the storm are the banks and payment system providers, including mobile money operators. These entities face the impossible task of discerning whether a customer who receives money from abroad is an agent of a foreigner, or whether their funds are exempt. The penalty for getting this wrong is a gobsmacking one million dollars.
There still remain hot-button legal issues: Article 1 on sovereignty, Articles 28 and 42 on the right to be heard and to fair treatment, Article 29 on freedom of speech, Article 38 on the right to participate in one’s own governance and to influence the policies of government, and the dud certificate of financial implications, which was no certificate at all. There is also the big question of whether government should withdraw the amended Bill and resubmit it for further public comment. The litigators are relishing a grand showing at the Constitutional Court. This Bill, and the way Parliament has handled it, is a perfect storm to iron out many points on the legislative process and the people’s sovereignty.
Parliament will probably pass the Bill today Tuesday, 5 May 2026. The Committee proceedings at Munyonyo on Sunday were hot. We pray for calm and sober minds.
It is ironic that fighting this Bill, that purports to protect their sovereignty, has united Ugandans across political, regional, ethnic, religious, professional, and other divides, even awakening some from the silent “my children are still young” crowd. Ugandans have shown their sovereignty, hats off to all. Indeed, ALL power belongs to the people.
