Lawyer and policy analyst Godber Tumushabe has weighed in on the controversial Sovereignty Bill passed by Parliament on Tuesday, arguing that the process exposed deep procedural and political contradictions within the legislative and executive arms of government.
Speaking during an interview on NBS Television on Wednesday morning, May 6, Tumushabe said the passage of the bill, despite its controversy, reflected what he described as a shift driven by public pressure and institutional hesitation.
“If you think about it in broader terms, the regime was defeated by the passing of the Sovereignty Bill. The way it was introduced and the shabbiness of it all that the President, Governor of the Bank of Uganda and others had to oppose it,” he said.
Tumushabe further argued that public engagement played a central role in forcing revisions and reconsideration of the bill, saying citizens had successfully challenged its original framing.
“The citizen pressure brought these guys into understanding that what they were doing with the Sovereignty Bill was fake. The citizens won,” he said, adding that sustained scrutiny had exposed weaknesses in the bill’s conception.
He also raised constitutional concerns, arguing that the bill touches on the broader architecture of governance and sovereignty protection.
“The Sovereignty Bill is part of the architecture to shift sovereignty from the people,” Tumushabe stated, emphasizing that Uganda’s constitutional framework is designed to safeguard popular sovereignty.
On the question of public participation, Tumushabe maintained that consultation processes did not resolve the fundamental disputes surrounding the legislation.
He pointed to confusion over authorship and revisions as evidence of deeper institutional inconsistencies.
“Public consultation doesn't remove the controversy around the bill. The controversy is that the author of the bill disowned the bill and they had to amend it,” he said.
He further suggested that Parliament should have taken a stronger procedural stance if the concerns raised at the executive level were to be taken seriously.
“A serious Parliament would tell them to take back the bill. The President said that the bill was a forgery. Parliament would have asked them to withdraw the bill and return the one the President was talking about,” Tumushabe added.
The Sovereignty Bill continues to generate debate among legal experts, policymakers, and civil society actors over its intent, legitimacy, and constitutional implications.