Uganda’s Attorney General, Kiryowa Kiwanuka, has unveiled major revisions to the controversial Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, after mounting criticism from lawmakers, civil society groups, and key institutions. While appearing before a joint parliamentary committee on April 30, he revealed that government had rewritten several contentious provisions in response to concerns that the original proposal was too broad and could threaten legitimate economic, religious, and social activities across the country.
One of the most significant changes in the revised draft is the narrowing of who can be targeted under the law. Earlier versions of the Bill had sparked alarm for potentially classifying even Ugandans living abroad as foreign actors. The amended proposal now focuses specifically on individuals described as “agents of foreigners” — people allegedly acting under the direction, influence, or funding of foreign entities to advance outside interests within Uganda.
The government has also introduced a stricter legal threshold for prosecution by requiring proof that a person intentionally sought to promote foreign interests before liability can arise. This adjustment is being viewed as an effort to reduce fears that the law could be used arbitrarily against critics, activists, or organisations based merely on suspicion or association with foreign-funded programs.
Despite these concessions, the revised Bill still grants extensive authority to the minister responsible for internal affairs. The minister would continue to oversee enforcement of the law, issue compliance directives, and create additional regulations linked to implementation. The amendments even allow the minister to introduce further exemptions through future regulations, a move that has already triggered concern among legislators who fear excessive concentration of power without independent oversight mechanisms.
Government has now moved to shield several sectors from the reach of the proposed legislation. Financial institutions regulated under existing laws, including commercial banks supervised by the central bank, would be allowed to continue receiving foreign capital for lawful operations such as lending and investment activities. According to Kiwanuka, these protections were inserted to reassure investors and businesses that the law is not intended to disrupt Uganda’s financial system or damage private sector confidence.
The revised Bill also creates exemptions for hospitals, health facilities, universities, research institutions, and faith-based organisations receiving foreign funding for legitimate work tied to healthcare, education, innovation, or religious missions. In addition, ordinary Ugandans receiving money from abroad for family support, trade, or personal use would not be affected. Government further clarified that foreign direct investment, humanitarian aid, export earnings, development grants, trade financing, and diaspora remittances would remain protected under the updated framework.
Even with the amendments, the legislation continues to generate fierce debate inside Parliament. Asuman Basalirwa criticized the Bill’s broad definition of political activities, warning that criminalising attempts to influence legislation or public policy could undermine democratic participation and weaken multiparty politics. He questioned why advocacy aimed at shaping laws or government decisions should automatically be treated as suspicious or dangerous conduct.
Meanwhile, Jonathan Odur challenged government over whether proper consultations had been conducted with institutions that previously opposed the Bill, including the central bank, the human rights commission, and financial regulators. He urged Parliament to reopen public hearings so stakeholders could review the extensive amendments before the legislation proceeds further, warning that pushing ahead without broader consultation could deepen public mistrust and fuel fears about the future impact of the law on civil liberties and governance.
