By Ben Musanje
The Uganda Law Society (ULS) and a coalition of governance experts have mounted a strong challenge against the proposed Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, describing it as vague, dangerous, and in part “a product of generative artificial intelligence.”
Speaking at a press briefing via online, Uganda Law Society President Isaac K Ssemakadde criticized both the substance and origins of the bill, arguing that it threatens fundamental democratic principles and citizen freedoms.
“The proper name is anti-citizenship, anti-citizen view or anti-sovereignty view,” Ssemakadde said. “The most iconic thing about this bill… is the author. This author is not a human. This author is a machine. The bill is the product of generative AI… it lacks human logic and is grossly inconsistent with the architecture of Uganda law.”
The controversial draft law, recently endorsed by the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) parliamentary caucus, seeks to tighten oversight of foreign financial inflows and criminalize activities deemed to promote external interests without state approval. It proposes mandatory registration of “foreign agents,” severe financial penalties, and prison sentences of up to 20 years.
Government Chief Whip Hamson Obua has defended the bill, stating it is intended to “shield Uganda from harmful external influence.”
However, critics argue the legislation is overly broad and could be used to silence dissent.
Ssemakadde warned that the bill “criminalizes dissent” and risks transforming Uganda into what he described as “a special militarized zone,” adding that “this bill is not a law; it is an announcement of departure” from democratic governance.
He further cautioned international partners and investors, urging them to reconsider engagement with Uganda should the bill pass. “If this bill passes… withdraw your money,” he said, arguing that continued partnerships could violate democratic principles enshrined in international agreements.
Echoing these concerns, Godber Tumushabe, Board Chairperson of the Center for Constitutional Governance (CCG), also using an online platform in a physically convened press conference at ULS headquarters in Kololo, framed the bill within a broader pattern of restrictive legislation.
“What we are seeing… is the increasing weaponization of the law or the legislative process against citizenship,” Tumushabe said. “The judicial system now has been so compromised that actually challenging these laws in court is not good enough.”
Tumushabe noted that recent legal developments including amendments affecting political organization and funding, reflect a growing tension between the state and citizens. “There is a problem that government and people fear each other… and the resulting effect is chaos,” he added.
The legal community, he argued, must act earlier in the legislative process rather than waiting to challenge laws after enactment.
Meanwhile, ULS Acting Secretary Ssali Babu raised concerns about the economic implications of the proposed law, particularly its potential to disrupt donor funding and international partnerships.
“With such a bill… it is going to have gross impacts economically and even in terms of relations with other countries,” Babu said. “Donor funding has been sustaining our budget… in education, legal access, and agriculture.”
He also warned of job losses similar to those experienced following the closure of donor-funded programs, noting that “over 5,000 Ugandans” previously lost employment under similar circumstances.
The Uganda Law Society has formally rejected the bill, with Babu stating: “We shall in all ways condemn, oppose and reject this bill.”
Beyond economic and legal concerns, critics argue the bill’s lack of a clear definition of “sovereignty” creates dangerous ambiguity. Ssemakadde questioned how enforcement would work, asking: “How will a policeman determine what is a violation? Sovereignty is freedom, sovereignty is liberty, sovereignty is the citizen.”
He further alleged that the bill selectively borrows from restrictive legal frameworks globally. “This person asked the machine to gather only provisions… from despotic regimes and merge them,” he said, reinforcing his claim that the legislation reflects an algorithmic rather than principled design.
Despite the criticism, the bill is expected to proceed through parliamentary processes, with stakeholders invited to submit their views. (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
