The Executive Director of the Alliance for Finance Monitoring (ACFIM), Henry Muguzi, has described the proposed National Sovereignty Bill, 2025, as a sweeping and potentially far-reaching legislation that could significantly reshape the country’s civic and political landscape.
Speaking to Canary Mugume during Next Big Talk hosted by Next Radio on Tuesday, Muguzi characterized the bill as a “game-changer,” warning that its implications extend beyond its stated objective of regulating foreign influence.
“If the National Sovereignty Bill is about managing relations with foreigners, then the biggest actor in that space is actually the government itself,” he said.
Muguzi argued that while the bill is framed as a safeguard against external interference, it disproportionately targets non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and political actors in the diaspora. He likened the legislation to a natural disaster, emphasizing its broad and indiscriminate impact.
“This bill can be likened to a tsunami. When a tsunami comes, it doesn’t distinguish between those who caused it and those who didn’t—it affects everyone in its path,” he said.
According to Muguzi, the bill appears to be specifically designed to monitor and potentially restrict certain NGOs and individuals operating outside the country.
“This law has eyes. It is targeting particular organizations and members of the diaspora,” he said.
Muguzi’s remarks come amid a growing national debate surrounding the proposed Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2025—also referred to as the National Sovereignty Bill, 2026—a comprehensive legislative initiative intended to regulate foreign influence and reinforce Uganda’s autonomy across political, economic, and social sectors.
Supporters of the bill, particularly within the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) Parliamentary Caucus, have defended it as a necessary step toward safeguarding national interests. They argue that increased oversight of foreign financial inflows is essential to ensure that Uganda’s governance and decision-making processes remain independent and free from undue external pressure.
Early drafts of the legislation indicate that organizations operating within Uganda would be required to disclose any foreign funding within 14 days of receipt.
Additionally, the bill proposes granting expanded powers to the Minister of Internal Affairs to monitor, regulate, and potentially restrict foreign financial participation in activities deemed harmful to national interests.
The NRM Parliamentary Caucus has already formally endorsed the proposal, positioning it as a mechanism to operationalize Article 1(1) of the Constitution of Uganda, which affirms that all power belongs to the people and must be exercised in accordance with their sovereign will.
Government Chief Whip Hamson Obua, addressing the media following a caucus meeting at State House Entebbe, defended the bill as consistent with international practices.
He argued that similar legal frameworks exist in other countries, including former colonial powers.
“We were colonized by the British; the UK has similar legislation. So, we are not reinventing the wheel. The proposed law seeks to regulate foreign financial inflows to ensure they are for legitimate purposes and not harmful to Uganda,” he said.
Obua further emphasized that the government’s intention is to fully secure Uganda’s sovereignty through legal means.
“We want sovereignty 100 percent, and we want to secure that through this law,” he said.
Despite these assurances, the bill has attracted criticism from civil society organizations and policy analysts. Critics argue that the proposed legislation closely mirrors earlier regulatory efforts targeting NGOs, particularly in relation to foreign funding and operational oversight.
Analysts point to similarities such as mandatory disclosure requirements and increased ministerial authority, suggesting that while the terminology may have evolved, the underlying objectives remain largely unchanged. These concerns have fueled fears about the potential shrinking of civic space and limitations on organizational independence.
Observers also note that the overlap between past and present proposals raises questions about whether the bill represents a new policy direction or a continuation of existing regulatory ambitions under a different framework.