Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026: A law that could cost Uganda its investors and tts rights

Uganda’s Parliament is considering a bill that, on paper, seeks to guard national sovereignty from foreign interference.

In practice, the Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026 erects a sweeping architecture of registration, criminal liability, and ministerial discretion that strikes at constitutional rights and threatens to upend the very foreign investment the country depends on.

A Constitution Under Strain The Bill’s most alarming feature is not what it regulates, but how it does so; through undefined terms, unchecked ministerial power, and criminal penalties that demand no proof of intent.

Clause 5 prohibits any act that promotes the interests of a foreigner “against the interests of Uganda,” yet nowhere defines what that phrase means. Any activity a government official deems contrary to Uganda’s interests could trigger a prosecution.

This is not law; it is discretion dressed as law. Freedom of expression, guaranteed under Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution, takes a direct blow from Clause 13, which criminalises the publication of information that “weakens or damages” Uganda’s economic system.

A foreign investor issuing a negative market advisory, a development partner publishing programme finding, or a journalist reporting on fiscal instability could all be prosecuted and sentenced to up to 20 years in prison without the State being required to prove any harmful intent whatsoever.

The Bill’s mandatory registration regime provided for in Part III, Clauses 14 to 20 permits the Minister to revoke a certificate at any time, on broad grounds, without prior notice or a hearing.

This directly contradicts Article 28 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing. Compounding this, the extensive financial disclosures required under Part IV expose private funding relationships without confidentiality protections, violating Article 27’s right to privacy.

Article 26 on the right to property is equally imperilled: funds received above approximately Shs 400 million annually without prior ministerial approval face automatic forfeiture to the State, even in good faith.

Meanwhile, Clauses 10 through 12 effectively criminalise civic participation, voter education, and governance monitoring when carried out by foreign- funded persons, a direct affront to Articles 29(1) (e) and 38, which protect freedom of association and the right of citizens to participate in their own governance.

Limitations on constitutional rights must, under Article 43, be necessary and proportionate. These provisions clear neither bar. Underpinning all of this is a troubling concentration of power in the executive.

The minister of Internal Affairs can, by statutory instrument, declare any entity to be a “foreigner” without parliamentary approval. That single clause renders the Bill’s entire reach unpredictable, and is difficult to reconcile with Articles 1 and 79 of the Constitution, which vest sovereign authority in the people and charge Parliament with its guardianship.

The Private Sector Cannot Afford This Bill Beyond the constitutional questions, the Bill’s practical consequences for Uganda’s private sector are severe. Any Ugandan company with foreign ownership, foreign directors, or foreign funding is captured as an agent of a foreigner.

Standard corporate activities executing investor decisions, operating within supply chains, managing cross- border contracts would require government registration and ongoing disclosure.

Commercially sensitive information, including pricing, contract terms, and funding structures, would be made publicly accessible. For businesses competing in regional and global markets, this is not a compliance inconvenience; it is a structural competitive disadvantage.

Professional services face their own crisis. Lawyers, auditors, and consultants serving foreign clients would be classified as agents of foreigners and subject to disclosure obligations that directly conflict with legal privilege and professional confidentiality.

The chilling effect on quality advisory services, which is the very services that attract and retain foreign capital could be profound. Banks and financial institutions face mandatory transaction monitoring and monthly reporting to the minister, with heavy criminal penalties for non-compliance.

The result will be delayed payments, blocked transactions, and escalating costs passed on to customers. For the broader investment climate, the message the Bill sends is unmistakable: Uganda is an unpredictable jurisdiction. No foreign investor will commit capital to a market where regulatory approval timelines are undefined, criminal exposure is strict liability, and ministerial discretion is unchecked.

Remittances which is a lifeline for countless Ugandan households are not exempt either. On a plain reading, a family member receiving money from a relative working abroad could be caught within the Bill’s definitions, requiring bank verification and ministerial authorisation before funds are released.

Parliament Must Act Uganda has legitimate interests in regulating foreign influence. No one disputes that. But this Bill, as drafted, does not regulate, rather it punishes, broadly and indiscriminately. It contains no transitional provisions, meaning existing lawful operations would be instantly exposed to criminal liability the moment it commences.

It imposes twenty-year prison sentences for administrative failures. It subjects Ugandan citizens working abroad to the legal status of foreigners in their own country. Parliament has a constitutional obligation to ensure that what it passes is not merely politically defensible but legally sound.

The Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, in its current form, is neither. Uganda’s rights, its economy, and its reputation as an investment destination deserve better.

The writer is an advocate