MP Medard Ssegona
Busiro East Member of Parliament and senior lawyer Medard Lubega Ssegona has raised sharp concerns over the recently passed Sovereignty Bill, questioning both the process and intent behind the legislation.
Speaking during a live interview on NBS Television on Tuesday night, Ssegona argued that the handling of the bill in Parliament reflected gaps in consultation and institutional coordination, despite its eventual passage.
He pointed out that the Bill falls under the docket of Internal Affairs Minister Kahinda Otafiire, yet the minister was not actively involved throughout its drafting and consideration stages.
“The Sovereignty Bill falls under Minister Kahinda Otafiire’s docket, yet he has not been involved throughout the process,” Ssegona said, suggesting a possible disconnect between the responsible ministry and parliamentary proceedings.
The legislator further criticised the speed at which the Bill was processed, arguing that lawmakers were not given sufficient time to engage with its contents in detail.
According to him, only a short window was allocated for consultations, which he described as inadequate for such a significant piece of legislation.
“The Sovereignty Bill lacked adequate consultation, as only three weeks were allocated for the process,” he noted, adding that the compressed timeline limited broader stakeholder input.
Ssegona also questioned the perceived political motivations behind the Bill, stating that early versions of the proposal appeared to be aimed at regulating political activity and financing.
He argued that such an approach risks interfering with legitimate political engagement, including diaspora contributions.
“The Sovereignty Bill was initially intended to target political actors. If I have supporters in the diaspora willing to fund my political ambitions, what is wrong with that?” he posed during the interview.
His remarks add to a growing debate surrounding the legislation, which has drawn mixed reactions from political actors, legal experts, and civil society groups.
Supporters of the Bill have previously argued that it is intended to strengthen national sovereignty and regulate external influence in domestic affairs, while critics warn it could limit political freedoms and participation.
The Sovereignty Bill’s passage now sets the stage for further discussions on its implementation and possible legal interpretations, with attention shifting to how it will be enforced across political and civic spaces.