A fresh political debate is unfolding in Uganda following concerns raised about the proposed Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026.
The draft law, which is yet to be tabled before Parliament, is already attracting attention both locally and internationally, especially among Ugandans living abroad.
At the center of the discussion is Solomon Sentamu, who has publicly shared his concerns after reviewing a draft version of the bill dated March 3.
At the center of the discussion is Solomon Sentamu, who has publicly shared his concerns after reviewing a draft version of the bill dated March 3.
In a detailed online statement, he warned that the proposed law contains strict provisions that could significantly affect how Ugandans participate in political activities—particularly those in the diaspora.
Sentamu, the son of opposition leader Robert Kyagulanyi, argued that the bill introduces broad definitions that could classify even Ugandan citizens living abroad as “foreigners” in certain contexts.
According to his interpretation, this could mean that diaspora Ugandans engaging in political discussions or advocacy related to Uganda may fall under tighter government regulation.
One of the most debated aspects of the bill is its stance on political involvement linked to foreign interests.
The draft reportedly proposes penalties for individuals found engaging in political activities “for or in the interest of a foreigner.” This includes online engagement, a move that critics say could limit free expression on digital platforms.
The proposed penalties are also drawing attention due to their severity. Individuals found guilty under the law could face up to 20 years in prison or fines reaching 100,000 currency points, which translates to approximately UGX 2 billion.
The proposed penalties are also drawing attention due to their severity. Individuals found guilty under the law could face up to 20 years in prison or fines reaching 100,000 currency points, which translates to approximately UGX 2 billion.
Such harsh consequences have raised fears among activists and political observers about potential misuse of the law to silence dissent.
Another key concern revolves around financial restrictions. The bill suggests that receiving funds exceeding 20,000 currency points (about UGX 400 million) from foreign sources within a year without official approval could be considered an offense.
Another key concern revolves around financial restrictions. The bill suggests that receiving funds exceeding 20,000 currency points (about UGX 400 million) from foreign sources within a year without official approval could be considered an offense.
These funds could also be confiscated by the state. Observers say this provision could directly affect fundraising efforts, especially those supporting opposition movements or civic initiatives abroad.
Sentamu also questioned the concentration of power within the proposed framework. He pointed out that significant authority—such as approving foreign funding and enforcing the law—would rest with Uganda’s Minister of Internal Affairs.
Sentamu also questioned the concentration of power within the proposed framework. He pointed out that significant authority—such as approving foreign funding and enforcing the law—would rest with Uganda’s Minister of Internal Affairs.
Critics argue that this could lead to excessive control being placed in a single office, raising concerns about transparency and accountability.
The timing of these concerns is notable, as Robert Kyagulanyi has recently been engaging with Ugandan communities abroad, particularly in the United States, mobilizing support and discussing governance issues.
While supporters of the bill may argue that it is intended to protect national sovereignty from external influence, critics believe it could instead restrict political freedoms and limit international engagement.
The timing of these concerns is notable, as Robert Kyagulanyi has recently been engaging with Ugandan communities abroad, particularly in the United States, mobilizing support and discussing governance issues.
While supporters of the bill may argue that it is intended to protect national sovereignty from external influence, critics believe it could instead restrict political freedoms and limit international engagement.
0 Comments