Sovereignty Bill: MPs raise concerns on legality of new bill at Munyonyo retreat

By Dedan Kimathi, Sarah Nabakooza and Nelson Mandela Muhoozi

KAMPALA - To say that the joint Parliament defence and legal committees currently on retreat at Kampala city-based Speke Resort Munyonyo for report writing on the Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, are having it rough would be an understatement.

Perhaps “difficult” is the more appropriate word to describe the delicate undertaking.

The task became even more complicated after the Bill on April 30, 2026, had to be watered down at the discretion of President Yoweri Museveni, who disowned blanket provisions that sought to subject all foreign cash inflows to rigorous checks and balances.

Despite breaking the silence on the above on Thursday, the very day, the two committees sat to reconsider the Bill, which many in the corridors colloquially described in Luganda as one “without intestines”, had earlier, in writing, given the party’s leadership, marching orders to rectify the same.

“I have talked to Hon. Hamson Obua and the chairpersons of the relevant Parliamentary Committees to make the Bill concentrate on the Sovereignty of policy-decision making and not to meander in the areas of freedom of private enterprise transfers or private money transfers or church donations,” President Museveni said on April 30.

This, coupled with an April 29 letter the lead chairperson of the joint defence and legal affairs committees, Wilson Kajwengye (Nyabushozi County, NRM) addressed to the internal affairs ministry, culminated in a harmonisation meeting, which took place at Parliament on April 29.

In relation to concerns that had been raised by various stakeholders since public hearings began six days earlier. According to a National Resistance Movement (NRM) Member of Parliament with close ties to the House leadership, the committee report would be finalised this weekend.

Section of MPs want bill withdrawn

Yet as citizens wait for the white smoke from the ongoing legislative conclave at the shores of Lake Victoria, Members of Parliament (MPs), an Opposition lawmaker speaking on condition of anonymity, said on May 2, 2026, serious concerns had emerged.

Many of them revolving on what a section of committee members are legal flaws.

He said colleagues argued that by substantially altering key clauses and creating exceptions for foreign funding intended for purposes other than opposing government policy, politics and economic sabotage, the Bill's general principles may have fundamentally changed.

These contended that while the overarching objective of protecting the country’s sovereignty remains intact, the extensive amendments could effectively make it an entirely new bill, which needs to be withdrawn and re-tabled if Government so wishes.

“That was raised, but the chair made an argument that there is a precedent prior to that when we dealt with the Fish and Aquatic Act that was in the same circumstance, but we proceeded,” he said.

A line which appears to be gaining traction among members of the public, such as commercial lawyer Phillip Karugaba, who on Saturday, posted on X (formerly Twitter).

“The Sovereignty Bill should be withdrawn & reintroduced. Not a novel ask, in 2023, AG @KiryowaKk himself moved to withdraw the Public Service Pension Fund Bill after it was substantially amended. The same principle applies now. Withdraw. Consult. Reintroduce.”

Soft copies irk MPs

Another sticking point, the MP said, attracted protests from Jonathan Odur (Erute South, UPC), Gilbert Olanya (Kilak South, FDC), Medard Ssegona (Busiro East), and another legislator whose name he could not recall was the decision to provide members with a summarised version of stakeholders’ submissions.

He revealed that the aforementioned instead wanted a full compendium of submissions from which to draw their conclusions.

“We wanted submissions of all entities that gave opinions. They supplied us in soft copy, and we said, no, we need hard copies of all these documents. You have given us summaries; we do not want you to summarise for us. Allow us to read through all these documents, by ourselves, process them, form our opinion and start considering the provisions therein. So, we broke off for lunch, and then we adjourned to resume at 3:00 pm,” the lawmaker revealed.

“The chairperson has been defiant; he wanted people to proceed, but members held their ground, saying the bill in itself is like a suicide pill,” he explained.

Another lawmaker who attended the opening day confirmed that both committee chairpersons were present.