A cross-section of stakeholders from the business community, civil society organizations, boda boda riders and local residents across the Busoga sub-region convened on Monday at Bax Hotel in Jinja City, their shared concern clear: Uganda’s proposed Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026 is stirring unease, confusion, and sharp divisions.
The consultative meeting, organized by the First African Bicycle Information Organization (FABIO), aimed to gather grassroots perspectives on the contentious legislation. But as discussions unfolded, it became evident that while some see the bill as necessary, many fear its potential consequences on livelihoods, governance, and civil liberties.
At the heart of the debate lies a central question: Who qualifies as a “foreign agent,” and at what cost?
Deborah Mutesi Magezi, one of the participants, voiced concern over what she described as excessive powers granted to the Minister of Internal Affairs under the proposed law. She warned that such authority could open doors to abuse and corruption.
“We need our Members of Parliament to come on the ground and consult us about this bill,” Mutesi said. “We have seen them do it on other laws. Why not this one?”
Her concerns were echoed in different forms across the room, particularly around the speed at which the bill is reportedly being pushed through legislative processes.
For Paul Ssenabulya, a businessman in Jinja, the bill is not entirely unwelcome—but its current form raises red flags. “We need this law,” he admitted, “but some sections and clauses must be reviewed.”
Ssenabulya questioned the urgency surrounding the bill, suggesting that the pace could indicate hidden interests. “It makes you feel that some individuals are interested in it,” he said. “People need enough time to understand and interpret it.”
His concerns are also personal. Like many Ugandans in a globalized economy, Ssenabulya works for employers based outside the country. “If the bill is passed into law, I will definitely become a foreign agent. How fair can that be?” he asked.
This fear of broad classification was a recurring theme during the discussions.
Priscilla Atana, representing Women’s Peace International, argued that the bill risks labeling a vast majority of Ugandans as foreign agents due to the country’s reliance on external support.
“Almost every Ugandan shall be a foreign agent in one way or another,” Atana said. “The majority of Ugandans are living on foreign aid.”
She pointed to churches, schools, and hospitals, many of which depend on international funding, as examples of institutions that could be affected.
However, not all voices were critical.
George Mubiru, the Assistant Resident City Commissioner for Jinja, defended the intent of the bill, framing it as a long-overdue effort to reduce Uganda’s dependency on foreign influence.
“This is not a one-time practice,” Mubiru explained. “It is a step-by-step exercise.”
He further alleged that Western countries have historically exploited Uganda through resource extraction and by funding political actors to destabilize the government—a claim often cited by proponents of tighter controls on foreign involvement.
Yet critics argue that the bill could have unintended economic consequences.
Wilwer Kibwakikaire, a local politician affiliated with the People’s Front for Freedom (PPF), warned that the legislation could cripple the non-governmental organization (NGO) sector, a major source of employment in the country.
“The government has created unemployment with this bill by eliminating NGOs which have provided jobs to many Ugandans,” he said.
He also questioned the bill’s framing of “foreigners,” noting the deep connections many Ugandans maintain with relatives abroad. “We have our brothers and sisters outside the country. Why call them foreign?” he asked.
FABIO Executive Director Joy Kawanguzi, whose organization facilitated the dialogue, raised both legal and practical concerns about the bill’s structure and implications.
She cautioned that the proposed law risks blurring the line between citizens and foreigners in an increasingly interconnected world.
“Many Ugandans travel in and out of the country every day,” Kawanguzi said. “If this bill is passed, it may turn Ugandans into foreigners.”
Kawanguzi emphasized the need for clarity in defining key terms within the legislation, particularly “foreigner,” warning that vague definitions could lead to misinterpretation and misuse.
She also questioned the necessity of introducing a new law when existing frameworks already regulate foreign funding. These include the Anti-Money Laundering Act, the Non-Governmental Organizations Act, and oversight by the Financial Intelligence Authority.
“Instead of creating a new law, amendments could be made to strengthen the existing ones,” she suggested.
Beyond legal concerns, Kawanguzi highlighted the financial realities facing civil society organizations, many of which operate on billion-shilling budgets funded largely through international partnerships.
“Capping foreign aid could severely limit their operations,” she noted.
The Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026 seeks to tighten state control over foreign influence by requiring individuals and organizations deemed to be acting on behalf of foreign interests to register as “agents of foreigners,” declare funding sources, and comply with strict regulations. It also proposes limits on foreign funding and penalties for activities considered to interfere with national policies, governance, or electoral processes.
As the meeting concluded, one thing was clear: the bill has ignited a critical national conversation, one that pits concerns over national independence against fears of economic disruption and shrinking civic space.
For many in Busoga, the call is not outright rejection, but deeper consultation. Whether Parliament will heed these voices remains to be seen.
