Sovereignty Bill: Lawyer’s bold pitch catches MPs off-guard

__________________

Since April 23, 2026, when Parliament's defence and legal committees flung open their doors to stakeholders to weigh in on the Protection of Sovereignty Bill, lawmakers say the proposed law has come under intense fire.

The MPs say the fire has been especially directed to Clause 2(2), which, in the words of legal and parliamentary affairs committee chairperson Stephen Bakka Mugabi (Bukhooli North, NRM), has “suffered enough”.

Not until April 27, when it found new allies in Mawokota South Member of Parliament Yusuf Nsibambi and Fred Johnson Asiimwe, a lawyer with practising experience in New York, Kenya and Uganda.

While the former’s predisposed views were arguably easy to read, owing to his political shift after the 2026 General Election, MPs were rather caught off-guard by Asiimwe's blunt take on the Bill.

Justification

Which according to him, the proposed law is in tandem with international legal instruments such as Article 2 of the United Nations (UN) charter, which solely bars members from threatening or using force in international and political relations with each other. Coupled with Resolution 2131 of the UN General Assembly. The latter, which was adopted on December 21, 1965, bars member states from directly or indirectly interfering in the affairs of other states.

Far from what naysayers have claimed, he pointed out that the Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, is not distinct when compared with laws in other democratic countries, such as the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) of the United States. In fact, he pointed out that Uganda’s budding law is much fairer compared to international practice.

FARA, which was enacted in 1938, imposes public disclosure obligations on persons representing foreign interests.

“FARA (22 U.S.C and 611 et esq) requires agents of foreign principals to disclose funding, receipts and disbursements primarily through semi-annual supplemental statements, initial registration forms (Exhibits A and B) and short-form registrations. Key disclosure requirements include the nature, amount and source of all money or items in value received from foreign principals,” Asiimwe argued.

For purposes of illustrating his point, he also cited the Defence Production Act of 1950 which authorises the President to block any foreign investment that threatens national security.

“The primary statutory provision restricting foreign investment via the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is Section 721 of the Defence Production Act of 1950 (50 U.S.C and 4565) as substantially amended by the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernisation Act of 2018 (FIRRMA). FIRRMA expanded the CFIUS jurisdiction to review non-controlling “TID” investments (Critical Technology, Infrastructure or Sensitive Personal Data) and certain real estate transactions,” Asiimwe explained.

Furthermore, he cited Section 301(8) of the Federal Election Campaign Act, which prohibits foreign nationals from donating money or any other thing of value in connection with a local ballot initiative or referendum. With those found culpable, liable upon conviction to a fine not less than $10,000 (equivalent to shillings 36.5 million) or 300 per cent of the amount of contribution imprisonment of one year or both.

“If it is sponsoring a political party and they say they have got shillings 400 million, how has it been used. Has it been used to sponsor the Bijambiya people? Has it been used to sponsor candidates to contest on the ticket of that political party?” he proposed.

“My humble prayer is that we undress the political colours and put on the Ugandan dress which knows no colour and no political party, that’s how we will appreciate this law. But the moment we approach in the angle that I belong to this political party, and therefore it is aimed at sabotaging me or sabotaging the party politics, we are selling the country. Let’s be honest,” Asiimwe concluded.

Double standards

However, to Bugweri County MP Abdu Katuntu, benchmarking on foreign countries who Uganda intends to steer clear of is a contradiction in itself.

“You want us to be influenced by what goes on in Canada and the US, and you don’t want other people to be influenced. This Bill is actually banning the influence of politics, and yet you want us to rely on your benchmarking to influence our decision here. It is a big contradiction because when you look at the Bill, it doesn’t tell us what is prohibited in other countries. It actually presumes that any best practices or practices outside are dangerous to your own country...” Katuntu observed.

Micro-finance institutions worried

Asiimwe’s argument notwithstanding, Pius Tweheyo a legal officer of the Association of Microfinance Institutions of Uganda (AMFIU), expressed concern that if the Bill is passed in its current form, particularly Clause 22, it could have far-reaching consequences.

The provision mandates that persons or entities dealing with foreigners must not obtain any donation, loan or other assistance from a foreigner, whether in cash or in kind, exceeding twenty thousand currency points (equivalent to sh400 million) within a period of twelve months without the written approval of the Minister.

With persons found in breach of the law subject to a fine of shillings two billion or 22 years imprisonment or both. While legal entities are subject to a shilling four billion fine.

Tweheyo warned that such a stringent provision could stifle efforts aimed at improving access to affordable credit for low-income earners. Instead, he proposed that licensed financial institutions be exempted from these and many other licensing since there are other measures already in place to forestall any ill motives Government is trying to cure.

“Most Microfinances, I will speak in particular for Fourth Generational Capital Group Limited, which gets grants from different funders. Let’s say Mastercard and other investment groups that are in Europe and the company itself, the Directors are foreign nationals or British nationals,” he said.