Protection of Sovereignty Bill 2026: Opportunities for improvement

__________________

OPINION

By Amb. Abbey Kigozi Walusimbi

As the discussion surrounding the Protection of Sovereignty Bill 2026 unfolds, I wish to call upon Ugandans in the Diaspora to remain calm. We are currently receiving and collating your views through memoranda for formal submission to ensure that your voices are heard. H.E. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni is a fervent supporter of the Diaspora agenda, and indeed, the Diaspora helped shape his vision for the country and Africa through Pan-Africanism.

The stated objective of this Bill is to protect both the Sovereignty of the State—Uganda’s autonomy over its territory and laws—and the Sovereignty of the People, defined as the supreme authority of citizens to govern by consent. This is a profound and noble effort by the Government. Article 1 of the Constitution of Uganda mandates the safeguarding of these pillars. Any law designed to protect the interests of citizens, with the State acting as their trustee, is, in principle, a necessary law.

Indeed, many countries across the globe have similar laws to safeguard their sovereignty and that of their people. For example, the United States of America has the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), a transparency law enacted in 1938 that requires individuals and entities acting as agents for foreign governments, political parties, or other foreign interests to register with the Department of Justice and periodically disclose their activities, relationships, and finances.

Originally created to counter Nazi propaganda before World War II, FARA’s primary purpose is to ensure that the American public and government officials can identify the sources of foreign influence intended to shape U.S. policy or public opinion. While it does not prohibit advocacy for foreign clients, failure to comply can lead to civil or criminal penalties, including fines and imprisonment for willful violations. Some of the operative provisions of Uganda’s Protection of Sovereignty Bill mirror these aspects of safeguarding against adverse foreign interference in nation-building. Such aspirations are universal and accord with the common-sense doctrine of self-preservation.

Some have argued that because the Government of Uganda has foreign development partners, it should abdicate its solemn duty to guard against hostile or contrary agendas that could pose existential threats to the country and its people. This argument is untenable. Every serious nation must guard against existential threats, and therefore, the Government of Uganda is on sound footing with regard to the objects of this Bill, notwithstanding inadvertencies in some of its provisions.

However, the current draft contains provisions that risk placing Ugandan citizens in the Diaspora in a net of ambiguity. Specifically, the definitions of “foreigner” and “agent of a foreigner” require urgent refinement to mitigate unintended consequences that may arise once the law is enacted.

At present, the Bill defines a foreigner to include “a Ugandan citizen residing outside Uganda.” This creates a legal absurdity: can a citizen truly be a foreigner to their own motherland? Uganda has a vibrant Diaspora community whose members remain Ugandans despite their residence abroad. This definition, combined with an overly elastic description of an “agent,” could have a chilling effect on Diaspora engagement and inadvertently alienate the very people the State seeks to protect.

Such an outcome could never be the intention of the Government and cannot reasonably be inferred from the objects of the Bill. Ugandans in the Diaspora work for a wide range of global entities but do not necessarily represent the nefarious schemes this Bill seeks to address.

At the same time, the State must not be oblivious to the reality that some non-state actors—including organised gangs, syndicates, and traffickers—have instigated political disturbances by sponsoring subversive activities through sections of the citizenry. Such risks cannot be left unattended once identified. On the contrary, the government has a duty to act proactively.

It is important to remember that this is a Bill, not yet an Act. This stage of public consultation exists precisely to identify and correct inadvertencies in drafting. These technical gaps should not be mistaken for malice. The Government’s primary objective remains the protection of its people, both at home and abroad.

The Bill has provided a template for social and political discourse and a platform for patriotic engagement through the submission of memoranda. These consultations will help ensure that the objects of the Bill are achieved while safeguarding the rights of citizens.

Our duty now is to ensure that the Bill is harmonised with existing legal and policy frameworks, including the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control (Amendment) Act of 2009, which legally established dual citizenship and allows Ugandans to hold another nationality while continuing to contribute positively to their motherland. We cannot afford a retrogressive step that undermines the gains made under this progressive policy.

Equally important is alignment with the National Diaspora Policy, which recognises the Diaspora as a vital component of Uganda’s socio-economic fabric. This policy is being advanced through collaboration among the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Office of the President, the Ministry of Gender and Labour, foreign governments, the International Labour Organisation, the International Organisation for Migration, banks, and other strategic stakeholders.

We remain committed to ensuring that the benign and noble objectives of this Bill are realised without unintended consequences for citizens abroad. Let us therefore engage in conclusive, constructive consultations to ensure that the final law reflects the unity, sovereignty, and collective aspirations of all Ugandans, wherever they may reside.

The writer is a Senior Presidential Advisor to H.E. The President of the Republic of Uganda, Diaspora Affairs, Office of the President