By Ben Musanje
Ugandans living abroad have submitted a detailed consultative report to Parliament on the Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, calling for targeted amendments to ensure the proposed law remains consistent with citizenship rights, legal clarity, and the country’s long-standing reliance on diaspora contributions.
The memorandum and accompanying report were presented to the Committee on Defense and Internal Affairs and the Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs. It was submitted by the Uganda Diaspora Leadership Council under the coordination of the Uganda Global Forum, a diaspora-focused policy and engagement network based in the United States.
The submission was formally signed by Gloria Nalule McLaughlin, Executive Director of the Uganda Global Forum, who led the presentation of findings collected from Ugandans living in 31 countries. The report also acknowledges the broader coordination role of the Uganda Diaspora Leadership Council in mobilising participation and consolidating responses.
According to the report, the consultation process included a public webinar and an online survey conducted in April 2026. The webinar attracted 465 participants, while its recorded version received more than 6,000 views within 24 hours. The accompanying survey generated 178 responses from Ugandans across Africa, Europe, North America, the Middle East, and Asia.
The report notes that while respondents broadly supported the government’s objective of strengthening national sovereignty, many expressed concern that certain provisions of the Bill may unintentionally affect Ugandan citizens residing abroad and their day-to-day economic and social activities.
A central concern raised during the consultation relates to the definition of “foreigner” in the Bill, which, as currently drafted, includes Ugandan citizens residing outside Uganda. Respondents strongly opposed this classification, arguing that citizenship should not be determined by residence.
One respondent, a Ugandan living in Zambia, stated in the submission: “We cannot be defined as foreigners elsewhere and also at home. Are we stateless?” The report notes that similar sentiments were echoed across multiple submissions, reflecting a shared concern about identity and equal citizenship.
The report also highlights the significant economic contribution of the diaspora. It cites Bank of Uganda estimates indicating that Ugandans abroad sent approximately USD 2.5 billion in remittances in 2025. These funds, it notes, play a critical role in supporting household welfare, education, healthcare, housing, and community development.
Participants warned that provisions affecting remittances or categorising diaspora citizens as foreign actors could have unintended consequences for families who rely on regular financial support.
The submission further raises concerns over Clause 2 of the Bill, which deals with the application of the Act to agents of foreign entities. Respondents argued that if Ugandans abroad are treated as foreigners, ordinary activities such as sending money home, supervising family property, or supporting community projects could unintentionally fall within the scope of regulatory oversight.
To illustrate this concern, the report references everyday examples provided by participants, including diaspora members paying school fees for relatives in Uganda or funding home construction projects managed by family members.
Another major area of concern is Clause 13, which addresses “economic sabotage.” While respondents supported measures against deliberate attempts to destabilise the economy, they cautioned that the wording could be interpreted too broadly. They warned that academic research, journalism, investment analysis, and policy commentary could be affected if intent and material harm are not clearly defined.
The report notes that such ambiguity could create uncertainty among professionals in the diaspora, particularly economists, researchers, and analysts who frequently comment on Uganda’s economic developments.
Administrative implementation was also identified as a key challenge. Respondents raised questions about how registration and approval processes would function in practice, especially for elderly beneficiaries and rural households who rely on diaspora remittances through mobile money and informal support channels.
The report stresses that compliance requirements should not create barriers that delay or restrict access to essential financial support.
Despite these concerns, the submission emphasizes that participants were not opposed to the principle of the Bill. Instead, they expressed a willingness to engage constructively in improving its provisions.
The report identifies six main recommendations. These include removing the classification of Ugandan citizens abroad as foreigners, clarifying that lawful diaspora activities do not fall under foreign interference provisions, and explicitly protecting research, journalism, and policy engagement.
It also recommends exempting legitimate private arrangements from agent registration requirements, excluding remittances from declaration obligations, and ensuring that family and community support transfers are not subjected to restrictive approval processes.
In its conclusion, the report states that sovereignty and diaspora engagement are complementary objectives. It argues that clear and proportionate legislation can both protect national interests and preserve the strong contributions made by Ugandans abroad.
The submission was formally signed by Mrs. Gloria Nalule McLaughlin, Executive Director of the Uganda Global Forum, and presented under the coordination of the Uganda Diaspora Leadership Council. It urges Parliament to consider the proposed amendments as part of ongoing committee review of the Bill and expresses readiness for further engagement. (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
