A senior public official has raised concern over Uganda’s proposed Protection of Sovereignty Bill, warning that it could have far-reaching implications on constitutional freedoms, civil society operations, and the country’s engagement with international partners.
Ronald Amanyire, the Principal Road Safety Officer at the Ministry of Works and Transport, said the draft law—currently being discussed in policy and governance circles—appears to go beyond safeguarding national sovereignty and instead introduces provisions that may significantly expand executive authority.
“I finally got a copy of The Protection of Sovereignty Bill last evening, went through it and let me tell you, some people are in trouble,” Amanyire stated, questioning the necessity of the Bill given that Uganda’s Constitution already provides for the protection of sovereignty.
According to his reading, the proposed law contains sweeping and vaguely defined clauses that could potentially affect a wide range of actors, including civil society organisations, journalists, private sector players, and ordinary citizens engaged in cross-border interactions.
He specifically pointed to the Bill’s definition of an “agent of a foreigner,” which he described as overly broad and open to interpretation.
He warned that such wording could unintentionally capture organisations involved in essential service delivery, including road safety initiatives, health programmes, and development partnerships, as well as businesses engaged in international trade.
“The definition is so dangerously broad that it could ensnare NGOs delivering essential services, health providers, or even citizens with relatives abroad,” he noted.
Amanyire further expressed concern over provisions that introduce offences such as “economic sabotage” and “disruptive activities,” arguing that they could blur the line between legitimate public accountability and criminal conduct.
He maintained that criticism of government policy should not be equated with sabotage.
“Criticism of government mismanagement is not sabotage; it is accountability,” he said, adding that cooperation with international partners remains a critical pillar of Uganda’s development in sectors such as education, health, and infrastructure.
The Bill, according to critics, also appears to centralise decision-making powers within the executive, particularly the Cabinet and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, raising concerns over institutional independence and checks and balances.
Amanyire warned that if passed in its current form, the legislation could have unintended consequences, including the restriction of civic space and reduced international cooperation.
“Sovereignty is not preserved by silencing voices or strangling civil society,” he stated. “It is preserved when institutions are independent and citizens can participate freely without fear.”
His remarks come amid growing scrutiny of similar legislative approaches in other African countries. Ethiopia’s 2009 charities law, which restricted foreign-funded advocacy work, was later repealed following criticism that it weakened civil society.
Kenya’s proposed NGO funding restrictions in 2013 were abandoned after public backlash, while Tanzania’s NGO laws have faced criticism over broad enforcement powers.
In Nigeria, similar proposals were dropped after constitutional concerns were raised.
Amanyire cautioned that Uganda risks following a restrictive model if safeguards are not built into the proposed law, arguing that sovereignty should not come at the expense of democratic freedoms.
“If passed in its current form, this Bill will not strengthen sovereignty—it will erode it,” he said.