Sovereignty in a shifting global order

______________

OPINION

By Enoch Barata

The introduction before Parliament of the National Sovereignty Bill, 2025, marks a consequential moment in Uganda’s legal and political trajectory. Its emergence has already triggered familiar criticisms — phrases such as “repression”, “censorship” and “autocracy” dominate public commentary.

Yet much of this reaction risks obscuring a more fundamental question: how should Uganda safeguard its sovereignty in an era where external influence is no longer subtle, but overt, co-ordinated and increasingly technological?

At its core, national sovereignty is not an abstract principle. It is the foundation upon which Uganda’s existence rests — the right of its people to determine their political, economic and social destiny. This principle is firmly anchored in the Constitution, which vests sovereignty in the people.

We must acknowledge, though, that the context to which this sovereignty must be defended has evolved dramatically since 1995.

Today’s global order is marked by open contestation over national autonomy. We are witnessing direct interference in the governance of states, overt geopolitical manoeuvring over territories and explicit support — financial, military and informational — for regime change aligned with foreign interests. What was once cloaked in diplomacy is now increasingly transparent. Influence is no longer exercised solely through sanctions or trade policy; it is embedded in digital ecosystems, funding structures and transnational networks that shape public discourse and policy outcomes.

Against this backdrop, Uganda’s proposed legislation is overdue. It is neither anomalous nor regressive.

Across jurisdictions, governments have introduced legal frameworks to enhance transparency in foreign engagements, regulate external funding and counter covert influence operations.

These measures reflect a shared recognition that sovereignty must be actively protected in a globalised and digitally connected world.

Comparative experience underscores this point. The US enacted the Foreign Agents Registration Act in 1938 to regulate foreign influence through transparency requirements. The European Union has developed frameworks to counter foreign information manipulation and interference.

Canada, Australia and Singapore have each adopted robust legislative regimes to monitor, disclose, and, where necessary, restrict foreign involvement in domestic, political and social processes.

These frameworks share a common thread: they prioritise transparency and national resilience while preserving legitimate international engagement.

The lesson for Uganda is clear. Regulating foreign influence is not about isolationism; it is about clarity, accountability and reciprocity.

The National Sovereignty Bill, 2025, identifies three critical vulnerabilities that demand urgent attention. First is the domain of digital influence and cybersecurity, where information operations can shape public opinion, distort democratic processes and erode institutional trust. Second is the structure of foreign aid and development financing, which, when tied to parallel programmes or conditionalities, can undermine national policy autonomy. Third is the regulation of non-governmental organisations and civil society funding, where opacity in external financing may create channels for undue influence.

Existing legal frameworks touch on these areas but fall short of addressing the specific risks posed by foreign actors operating within them. The proposed bill seeks to close these gaps through a set of measured objectives: strengthening transparency in foreign engagements, ensuring sovereign oversight of external funding, safeguarding cultural and social identity and enhancing cyber resilience.

These are not radical propositions. They align with established principles of international law, including the protection of domestic jurisdiction and they give practical effect to constitutional guarantees of sovereignty.

Uganda’s relative stability over the past four decades has not been accidental. It has been the result of deliberate investments in security, institutional continuity, and the preservation of cultural identity. However, the nature of threats to sovereignty has evolved. They are less visible, more diffuse and often embedded in systems that appear benign — media platforms, development partnerships and civic initiatives.

This is precisely why legislative action is necessary.

Delay carries risks

Without a clear and modern legal framework, Uganda remains exposed to forms of interference that are difficult to detect and even harder to counter once entrenched. By contrast, a well-calibrated sovereignty law can provide the tools needed to distinguish between legitimate co-operation and harmful intrusion.

For policymakers and legislators, the task is not to dismiss criticism outright, but to engage it constructively while remaining anchored in first principles. The question is not whether Uganda should regulate foreign influence, but how it can do so in a manner that is transparent, proportionate and firmly grounded in constitutional values.

The National Sovereignty Bill, 2025, is an opportunity to answer that question. It is a chance to modernise Uganda’s legal defences in line with global realities, while affirming a simple but enduring truth: sovereignty, once ceded or eroded, is rarely regained without cost.

The responsibility, therefore, lies with today’s lawmakers to act with clarity and foresight. In a rapidly changing global order, safeguarding sovereignty is not optional — it is essential. Other nations have gone ahead of us, but that is no excuse for us to remain behind.

The writer is a practicing lawyer and the Director of Legal Services of the National Resistance Movement