Published On April 27, 2026  |  by UHRC

INTRODUCTION The Uganda Human Rights Commission is mandated under Articles 52 and 53 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda to promote and protect human rights. In discharging its mandate, UHRC monitors government’s compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights and makes recommendations to Parliament on effective measures for the promotion of human rights. Furthermore, the UHRC as a National Human Rights institution, is mandated to review and analyze bills before Parliament in order to ensure that they are in line with human rights obligations and standards and not in conflict with existing laws. It is on this basis that the UHRC presents its position on the Protection of Sovereignty Bill ,2026 to the Parliamentary Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs GENERAL BACKGROUND TO THE BILLThe main objective of the Bill is to enact a law that seeks to provide for the protection of sovereignty of the people of Uganda ;to designate the department responsible for peace and security as the responsible entity for the registration and regulation of agents of foreigners ;to provide for the protection of the sovereignty of Ugandans; to provide for the registration of agents of foreigners ;to regulate funding and any other assistance to agents of foreigners and other related matters. The Uganda Human Rights Commission acknowledges that the objective of the Bill as, to safeguard Uganda’s sovereignty and protect national interests from undue foreign influence, is a legitimate state interest recognized under both domestic and international law. States are entitled to regulate external interference, particularly where it threatens national security, public order, or democratic governance.However, such regulation must be undertaken in strict conformity with The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995 and Uganda’s obligations under international and regional human rights instruments, that include;The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR).Important to note also is that any limitation on rights must meet the established legal tests of:Legality (clarity and precision of the law) Legitimate aim Necessity Proportionality Non-discrimination This position paper therefore provides a detailed clause-by-clause analysis, highlights positive provisions, identifies problematic clauses, and proposes recommendations for alignment with human rights standards.POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THE BILL The UHRC notes that the Bill contains several legitimate and commendable elements and they include the following; (a) Protection of Sovereignty and Self-Determination (Clause 9)• Aligns with the right to self-determination under international law. • Recognizes risks of undue foreign interference in governance. (b) Transparency in Foreign Funding (Clauses 21, 25, 26)• Promotes accountability and transparency of foreign-funded entities. • Can strengthen public trust if implemented fairly. (c) Regulation of Electoral Interference (Clause 11)• Protects integrity of elections, which is a core democratic right. (d) Prevention of Economic Sabotage (Clause 13)• Aims to safeguard national economic stability.HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS IN THE BILL 4.1 DEFINITION OF KEY WORDS 4.1.1Definition of Agent of a foreigner Under the Bill “ an agent of a foreigner “is defined as any person acting as an agent, representative, employee, or servant—or in any other capacity—at the order, request, or under the direction or control of a foreigner. This includes any person whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidized by a foreigner. The UHRC notes that the scope of application of this clause too broad and creates a significant legal uncertainty and risks stigmatizing innocent citizens by virtue of their employment, trade of family ties.  Further more the word “indirectly financed, controlled or directed…” as used in the definition section is a critical one. For example, a local non-governmental institution funded by another local NGO that receives international grants is an agent of a foreigner. The Commission notes that the definition captures majority of Ugandan’s civil society, its academic institutions, its media and any person in general in a single clause.Definition of disruptive activities Under the Bill, “disruptive activities” are defined to include:(a) Any act or conduct prejudicial to or threatening the security of Uganda;(b) Any act or conduct threatening violence against any person;(c) Threatening to cause bodily harm, whether to the person to whom the threat is made or to another;(d) Threatening the destruction of property;(e) Employing, recruiting, engaging, sponsoring, or contracting any person to promote the interests of a foreigner;(f) Engaging or participating in a riot or unlawful assembly.The Commission notes that this clause fails to provide a clear legal standard for what constitutes an activity “prejudicial to security,” leaving it open to subjective interpretation and abuse. By including threats of violence and property damage between private individuals, the Bill inappropriately expands the scope of “national security.” These matters are already governed by the Penal Code Act, which covers assault, grievous harm, and malicious damage to property.Furthermore, the Commission notes that the prohibition on “promoting the interests of a foreigner” is vague and need proper definition considering the fact that not all foreign interests are detrimental to the nation; for example, foreign companies engaged in trade that significantly contribute to the economy. The commission further notes that the way the clause is drafted, the law does not specify which foreign interests are prohibited. Consequently, a domestic worker, a consultant, or a service provider for a foreigner could technically be accused of “promoting foreign interests.” Such generalized regulation threatens the operations and safety of all foreign entities and individuals in Uganda, creating a hostile environment for vital investment and development work.Definition of a foreigner The Bill under clause 1 defines a “foreigner” to include:a) A non-Ugandan citizen;b) A Ugandan citizen residing outside Uganda;c) A foreign government, consulate, high commission, embassy, or other diplomatic mission;d) A company, NGO, or entity registered outside Uganda;e) An international or multinational organization; orf) Any institution that the Minister may declare via Statutory Instrument.The Commission notes that while the clause addresses standard foreign entities, several inclusions such Ugandan citizens residing outside Uganda is a direct disenfranchisement of the Diaspora. By categorizing Ugandan citizens living abroad as “foreigners,” the Bill effectively disenfranchises over a million people. Not only does the definition not specify the period of time that a person has to have been residing outside the country to fall within its ambit, it also presumes that once someone resides outside Uganda, they have automatically forfeited the rights and obligations which pertain to them as citizens. Within this current definition all staff of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, who are on official deployment by the Government of Uganda, are deemed to be foreigners, students studying abroad, individuals working for INGO’s.This directly contradicts the spirit of Article 1 of the Constitution and undermines constitutional protections regarding the inherent rights of citizens. In practice, this could treat some citizens as less equal than others if not addressed. It may also effectively take away certain rights of citizenship, which goes against Uganda’s policy on dual citizenship.The Commission further observes that, if left unchanged, this clause poses a serious risk to Ugandan multinational businesses. There is a real possibility that Ugandan-owned companies operating across borders could be treated as foreign entities. The Bill does not clearly state whether Ugandan businesses registered abroad for commercial purposes would still be recognized as local, which could unintentionally hinder national economic growth.4.1.4 The term “foreign policy or foreign interests” is not defined for purposed of this law. It thus leaves the interpretation thereof to the discretion of a responsible officer and open to possibility of abuse. 4.3 Autonomous Executive Discretion: The Commission notes with concern that this clause grants the Minister broad and unchecked authority to designate any individual or business as a “foreigner” through statutory instruments. The absence of clear legal criteria and adequate parliamentary oversight creates a significant risk of arbitrary decision-making. Such wide discretion is susceptible to misuse, including potential political targeting or abuse of power.The Commission recommends that this provision be amended to introduce clear, objective, and well-defined criteria for determining who qualifies as a “foreigner.” In addition, the exercise of this power should be subject to oversight to ensure accountability. Safeguards should also be included to guarantee transparency, including the requirement to provide written reasons for such designations and the right of affected persons or entities to challenge the decision before an independent body or court.4.4. Application of the Bill Clause 2 of the Bill applies to ;  a) Agents of foreigners;b) Persons engaged in political activities in the interest of a foreigner;c) Persons who solicit, collect, disperse, or dispense contributions, loans, or other items of value for the interests of a foreigner;d) Persons who agree, consent, assume, or purport to act as a representative of a foreigner;e) Persons who influence the development of government policy;The Commission notes that this provision criminalizes professional Services and unfairly targets certain professionals such as advocates and accountants. Their professional duty to ensure legal compliance and financial transparency for international clients could be misconstrued as acting “in the interest of foreigners,” leading to the criminalization of essential professional services. Clause 2(e) which provides for “persons who influence the development of government policy” is too broad in scope and ambiguous. It also directly contravenes article 38 (2) of the Constitution which provides for the right of every Ugandan to participate in peaceful activities to influence the policies of government through civic organisations.Additionally, clause 2 (g) which includes ‘influencing the people to oppose the policy of government” is too broadly worded as to stifle legitimate debate in a democratic society. Suppression of Civic Participatio: The provisions regarding the “influence” or “opposition” of government policy are alarmingly broad. A government can only gauge the success of its policies through independent research and public critique.  5. Administration of the Act and Functions of the Department (Clauses 3 and 4)The Commission observes that the Bill assigns responsibility for the implementation of the Act to the department in charge of peace and security within the Ministry of Internal Affairs. However, the Bill does not provide clarity on the structure, leadership, or governance framework of this department. It is notably silent on its composition, mandate, and oversight mechanisms under Clause 3. In the absence of a clearly defined governance framework, the department risks operating without sufficient accountability safeguards, which may lead to administrative overreach or abuse of power.The Commission recommends that the Bill be amended to clearly establish the structure, composition, and mandate of the responsible department. The law should also provide for independent oversight mechanisms, including parliamentary supervision and internal accountability procedures. Additionally, provisions should be included to ensure transparency in decision-making, as well as avenues for complaints and redress for individuals affected by the department’s actions. This will help ensure that the implementation of the Act is consistent with human rights standards and principles of good governance.Sovereignty of the People (Clause 5)This clause provides for the sovereignty of the people of Uganda. It prohibits persons from promoting foreign interests over the interests of Uganda and criminalizes any conduct that does so.The Commission notes that the bill has not provided a legal definition for “interests of Uganda” versus “foreign interests.” This uncertainty makes it impossible for an individual to determine which actions are legally permissible, directly violating Article 28 of the Constitution, which requires that any criminal offence be clearly defined so that an accused person understands the nature of the charge. Furthermore, by framing sovereignty as the exclusive preserve of residents, the Bill suggests that Ugandans in the diaspora are excluded from their constitutional role in exercising national sovereignty—a clear contradiction of the universal rights afforded to all citizens under Article 1.The Commission therefore recommends that the Bill be amended to include clear, precise, and legally sound definitions of both “interests of Uganda” and “foreign interests,” in line with the constitutional principle of legality under Article 28. These definitions should be tailored to cover only conduct that poses a genuine and demonstrable threat to national security or public order, so as to avoid criminalizing legitimate activities such as advocacy, research, or international cooperation.In addition, the Bill should be revised to expressly recognize that sovereignty resides in all citizens of Uganda, including those in the diaspora, in accordance with Article 1 of the Constitution. Any provisions that suggest exclusion or limitation of the rights of Ugandans abroad should be removed or clarified to ensure equal protection and participation of all citizens, regardless of their place of residence.Clauses 6,7,8 prohibit agents of foreigners from providing services in health, education, water and infrastructure without cabinet approval. they may not develop or influence government policy. They may not implement government policy. Whereas it is true that implementation of government policy is through cabinet, there are already approved guiding policies and documents including Vision 2040, the National Development Plan and the manifesto of the ruling government. To require cabinet approval for activities already falling within these known and approved policies is redundant. The Commission also notes that there is no timeline for how long cabinet approval may take. More so the government has no obligation to give reasons for refusal. there are no appeals process short of going to court. It is important to note that thousands of NGOs currently operate in exactly these sectors under the existing NGO Bureau permits. Under this bill each one of them would require a separate cabinet approval with no prescribed deadline and no guarantee of outcome. 8. Prohibition of the Promotion of Foreign Policy of Another Country (Clause 10)This clause prohibits any person from soliciting, receiving, or obtaining funding or assistance from a foreigner to sponsor or organize meetings aimed at promoting the foreign policy of another country.The Commission notes that if the goal is to prevent the “importation” of foreign ideas, the Bill threatens national progress. Most successful reforms in Uganda are informed by international best practices and comparative research. This provision makes it legally risky for researchers and citizens to advocate for reforms based on successful global models, effectively stifling policy innovation and the civic engagement guaranteed by the Constitution.The Commission recommends that this clause be reviewed and substantially amended to ensure that it does not unduly restrict legitimate academic, policy, and civic engagement activities. In its current form, the provision is overly broad and risks criminalising lawful conduct such as research, knowledge exchange, and advocacy informed by international best practices. The Bill should further clearly distinguish between harmful foreign interference and legitimate collaboration, including research, policy dialogue, and development cooperation. To this end, the clause should be limited to situations where there is clear evidence of coercion, manipulation, or activities that pose a demonstrable threat to national security or public order.9. Prohibition of Interfering with Electoral Processes  Clause 11 prohibits foreigners or their agents from interfering in Uganda’s elections and electoral processes. While protecting electoral integrity is a standard legislative goal, the Bill’s overly broad definition of “foreigner” creates a high risk of disenfranchising Ugandan citizens.The Commission recommends that bill should define what constitutes “influencing” or “interfering.” Consequently, Ugandan citizens employed by international firms or those representing the interests of the diaspora could be arbitrarily classified as foreign agents and barred from engaging in the electoral process.The   Commission further notes that the bill  practically disenfranchises  the Diaspora since  the Bill defines Ugandans residing abroad as “foreigners,” Clause 11 effectively prohibits the diaspora from participating in the country’s democratic process. This directly undermines the right to vote and be elected as enshrined in Article 59 of the Constitution. Rather than stripping these rights, the government should create avenues for Ugandans abroad to exercise their political participation and voting rights.The Commission further notes that Clause 11(3) criminalizes an “agent of a foreigner” for participating in an election, penalizing citizens for exercising civic rights in violation of Article 59 and Article 21 (freedom from discrimination).10. Prohibition of Interfering with the Operations of Government (Clause 12)This clause prohibits meetings or the solicitation of funds for activities that undermine the general functioning of the government.The clause fails to define what acts constitute undermining or “interfering with the operations of government,” leaving the provision open to extreme administrative abuse. For instance, if citizens meet to criticize a government program or collectively opt out of a non-mandatory plan, such actions could be labeled as undermining or “interference.” As drafted, the Bill risks criminalizing any form of public oversight or critique. This ambiguity threatens Article 1(Sovereignty of the people) and Article 28 (Legal certainty). By criminalizing challenges to government programs, the Bill effectively bans the democratic right of citizens to hold their government accountable.The Commission therefore recommends that this clause be amended to provide a clear, definition of what constitutes “undermining” or “interfering with the operations of government,” in line with the constitutional requirement of legal certainty under Article 28. The definition should be limited to conduct that poses a real and demonstrable threat to national security, public order, or the lawful functioning of state institutions, and should not extend to lawful civic activities.The provision should expressly exclude legitimate democratic actions, including: Peaceful assembly and meetings, Public criticism of government policies and programs, Advocacy, civic engagement, and collective action.In addition, the Commission recommends the inclusion of explicit safeguards to protect the right of citizens to participate in governance, as guaranteed under Article 1 and 38 of the Constitution. Any restrictions must meet the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality, and should not be used to suppress dissent or accountability.Finally, the clause should incorporate procedural safeguards, including judicial oversight and the requirement for authorities to provide clear and reasoned justification for any enforcement action, to prevent misuse and ensure compliance with constitutional and human rights standards.11. Prohibition of Economic Sabotage (Clause 13)The Bill stipulates that any person who publishes information or participates in any activity that weakens or damages the economic system, or causes economic disruption, insecurity, or instability, commits an offence.The Commission recommendation that the bill should define what constitutes “weakening” or “damaging” an economic system, to eliminate this vagueness. Without a clear definition of what an “economic system” is or how damage is measured, this clause serves as a tool to suppress legitimate economic discourse and transparency. 12. Registration of an Agent of a Foreigner (Clause 14)Clause 14 requires all “agents of foreigners” to register and criminalizes acting as an agent in Uganda without such registration.Given the expansive definition of a “foreign agent” which captures employees of international companies, legal and financial professionals, and even relatives of Ugandans living abroad this requirement creates an impractical and massive bureaucratic burden. Furthermore, this clause criminalizing family Support for example an elderly parent receiving funds from a child working abroad would technically be required to register as a foreign agent.The Commission recommend that definition of “agent of a foreigner” should be refined to exclude, family members receiving personal remittances, employees of legitimate international businesses and professionals engaged in lawful commercial or advisory services.The Commission further recommends that family support arrangements, including remittances, be expressly exempted from the scope of the law, as criminalising such conduct would be disproportionate and inconsistent with the right to family life, property, and livelihood.13.Considerations for Application for Registration Clause 15 (2) (f) requires a “person wishing to register as a foreign agent” to provide a detailed statement of “every activity they are performing or intending to perform for themselves”. This clause is excessively intrusive and the wording is vague and ambiguous. It directly affects the right to privacy for no clear legitimate cause. Clause 16 mandates that the government considers several factors before registering a person, including their identity, character, and mental and physical health.The requirement to vet applicants based on “identity,” “character,” and “health” is highly subjective and provides a gateway for systemic discrimination and abuse. This impliedly means that Individuals who do not conform to state-preferred identities or character traits could be arbitrarily denied registration, violating the non-discrimination protections under Article 21 of the Constitution.  Moreso, under Uganda’s Data Protection and Privacy Act, these are classified as special personal data which cannot be collected without explicitly consent. The Commission therefore recommends that the wording of this provision be changed because may is subjective and open to a wide interpretation. Leaving applicant at the mercy of the department. 14: Certificate of Registration (Clause 17)Clause17 provides that approved agents shall be issued a two-year certificate confirming their status. It grants the Minister the power to impose additional conditions on the certificate, which the agent must follow.The Bill grants the Minister excessive and unchecked power to impose conditions that are not defined in the law, making the process ripe for abuse. The agent is further subjected to two-year permit renewal processes which is not only cumbersome but also costly, considering the time and resources that might be required, defined by the regulations. The requirement for citizens to register before acting on behalf of others and more so renew their agency status every two years has far-reaching negative implications that include the following  1) Employment Risk: Employees of international firms who are denied registration —or whose certificates are not renewed—may be forced out of their jobs, as working without a permit would become a criminal offence.2) Family Support: Relatives managing family affairs or assets for Ugandans abroad may be barred from acting on behalf of their kin if the Minister denies their registration, or refuses to renew their permits, potentially freezing family estates and support systems.3) Financial Sector Liability: Banks and telecommunications companies could face severe penalties for processing transactions for “unregistered agents.” This creates a massive liability for the financial sector and threatens the stability of the entire mobile money and banking ecosystem.4) Social Services: Religious leaders, NGOs, and community-based organizations implementing social projects funded by external support could be criminalized if their staff or beneficiaries are not registered, or don’t have valid permits.The commission notes that these uncertainties are unnecessary in a free and democratic society and pose a fundamental threat to the livelihoods and financial security of millions of Ugandans.15. Restrictions on Funding from Foreigners Clause 22 prohibits any person in Uganda from receiving funds from foreigners exceeding UGX 400,000,000 (Four Hundred Million Shillings) within a 12-month period without prior written approval from the Minister.  The Bill criminalizes the receipt of such funds without explicit ministerial consent.The Commission notes that the Bill offers no clear justification for the UGX 400,000,000 threshold; this stated figure lacks any policy rationale. Furthermore, this restriction poses a severe threat to Uganda’s investment climate and general commerce by targeting critical financial activities, including, hindering licensed banks from providing large-scale credit facilities to local enterprises and also discouraging Diaspora Investment of Ugandans living abroad from transferring significant capital home for personal investment or development projects.16.  Reporting on Foreign Funding Clause 25 stipulates that a “supervised institution” shall not disburse funds to an agent of a foreigner unless the agent declares the source of the funding and provides written proof of ministerial authorization. The Bill defines a “supervised institution” as any person licensed under an Act of Parliament to facilitate the cross-border transfer of money.The Commission notes that the definition of a “supervised institution” is wide. By covering anyone licensed to facilitate cross-border transfers, it potentially includes not only commercial banks but also thousands of individual mobile money agents. Requiring a local agent in a village to verify ministerial authorization before paying out a transaction is both impractical and technically impossible.The commission further notes that the Bill requires a declaration of source of and ministerial proof for every disbursement, regardless of the amount of which the commission considers to be redundancy, since robust reporting and inquiry mechanisms for large or suspicious transactions already exist under Uganda’s Anti-Money Laundering (AML) laws and Tier 1–4 financial regulations, this clause serves no genuine regulatory purpose. Instead, it acts as a tool to stifle routine financial transactions between Ugandans and their relatives or associates abroad. 17. Inspection (Clause 28)This clause provides that a person appointed by the Minister may, at any reasonable time, inspect the premises of an “agent of a foreigner” and request any information deemed necessary to give effect to the Act. Obstruction of an inspector is punishable by a fine of UGX 40,000,000 and/or seven years of imprisonment.1) Absence of Judicial Oversight: The powers granted here are excessively broad and lack necessary judicial checks. By allowing inspections “at any reasonable time” without a court-issued search warrant, the Bill bypasses standard legal protections for privacy and property.2) Invasion of Private Residences: When read alongside the definition of a “foreigner”—which includes Ugandan citizens residing abroad—this clause becomes particularly dangerous. Since “premises” is not defined, it could be interpreted to include the private homes of relatives or associates who receive funds or manage affairs for those in the diaspora. This creates a high risk of state-sanctioned invasion of privacy.Furthermore, the 40 million fine and/or seven-year penalty for “obstruction” is disproportionately harsh; it serves to intimidate citizens, as even questioning an inspector’s presence in a private home could be construed as a criminal act 18. Excessive and Disproportionate PunishmentThe Commission notes that throughout the Bill, the penalty for failing to meet obligations such as registration or financial declaration is a fine of up to 100,000 currency points (UGX 2 billion) for individuals and 200,000 currency points (UGX 4 billion) for companies, or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 20 years.The Commission notes that the punishments provided lack proportionality and are grossly excessive, particularly for administrative defaults such as failing to register or neglecting to file returns. Under the Constitution of Uganda (Sentencing Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2013, sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of the offending behavior and the culpability of the offender. These 20-year terms for administrative “oversights” mirror penalties typically reserved for violent capital offenses like aggravated robbery, directly violating the principle of parsimony, which dictates that a sentence should not be more severe than necessary to meet the purposes of justice.The Commission therefore recommends that bill interests itself in studying the Breach of Global Standards: International human rights law, specifically the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Uganda is a party, requires that restrictive measures must be the least intrusive instrument amongst those capable of achieving the desired result. The UN Human Rights Committee has clarified that penalties must demonstrate necessity and proportionality to the interest being protected. By imposing billion-shilling fines for simple non-disclosure, the Bill ignores the “enforcement pyramid” standard, which suggests that criminal prosecution should be reserved only for the most serious and harmful violations, while administrative warnings should suffice for minor non-compliance to be able to minimize global standards. Violation of the Right to Dignity: The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Article 5) absolutely prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment. The African Court has held that this prohibition is absolute and must be extended to provide the widest possible protection against abuse. Imposing a UGX 4 billion fine on an organization for a breach involving a fraction of that amount is inherently degrading and designed to cause institutional liquidation rather than reform. Conclusion The Uganda Human Rights Commission notes that the Bill addresses a legitimate concern regarding national sovereignty. However, without substantial revision, it risks severely restricting legitimate civic space which is a critical part of a democratic society. It also threatens to undermine key constitutional freedoms including the rights and duties of a citizen, the rights to participate meaningfully in the affairs of the country for the national interest and risks enabling arbitrary enforcement. Parliament is therefore urged to reconsider and amend the Bill to ensure that it achieves its objective without compromising human rights and democratic principles.