Bufumbira County East Member of Parliament Eddie Kwizera has described the timing of the proposed Protection of Sovereignty Bill 2026 as unsuitable and its formulation as fundamentally flawed. He has urged the government to withdraw the legislation for further consultation and to ensure it is properly aligned with the Constitution.
Speaking to Canary Mugume during Next Big Talk hosted by Next Radio on Saturday, Kwizera said Parliament is not currently in a position to produce sound legislation on the matter, arguing that the prevailing circumstances do not support the making of effective and balanced law.
Kwizera argued that the timing of the Bill “doesn’t facilitate the making of good law yet Parliament is supposed to make good law for peace development and prosperity.”
Kwizera further criticized the architects of the Bill, arguing that they lack sufficient understanding of public governance.
“Government programs and activities are implemented through public policy. The people who formulated the Protection of Sovereignty Bill 2026 failed to distinguish between the sovereignty of the people and that of the State,” he said.
Kwizera added that the Protection of Sovereignty Bill 2026 should be withdrawn to allow for broader national consultation, including a detailed review of its financial implications and its consistency with Uganda’s Constitution.
Kwizera insisted that any legislation of such magnitude must be properly harmonized with constitutional principles before being enacted.
The Bill has in recent weeks become the subject of intense national debate. President Museveni recently distanced himself from what he described as “misinterpretations” of the proposed law.
In a statement shared via his X (formerly Twitter) account, Museveni questioned whether critics were referring to the version he initiated in Cabinet, stressing that his original proposal was grounded in Uganda’s historical struggle for sovereignty and policy independence.
Museveni clarified that his intended focus was on safeguarding Uganda’s decision-making autonomy across political, social, cultural, economic, and diplomatic domains, while firmly rejecting suggestions that the Bill was designed to restrict foreign direct investment, remittances, or religious funding. He reiterated that Uganda operates a free economy and emphasized that the country’s financial systems rely heavily on private sector participation and open capital flows.
However, the draft legislation currently before Parliament, tabled by State Minister for Internal Affairs David Muhoozi, has drawn significant criticism for its broad regulatory scope.
It proposes enhanced government oversight of digital platforms and civic engagement, mandatory registration and vetting of foreign-funded entities, limits on foreign funding without ministerial approval, and strict monthly reporting obligations for financial institutions.
One of the most contentious provisions introduces the offence of “economic sabotage,” defined in broad terms to include publishing information deemed harmful to economic stability or mobilising opposition to government policy without prior approval.
Critics argue that such provisions risk undermining freedoms of expression, association, and access to information, while exposing journalists, researchers, and activists to criminal liability.
The Bank of Uganda Governor, Michael Atingi-Ego, has also warned that the Bill could have far-reaching economic consequences, including capital flight, weakening of the shilling, and reduced investor confidence. He cautioned that Uganda’s reserves and external financial stability could be threatened if restrictive controls are implemented, noting that the economy depends heavily on sustained foreign capital inflows.
In response to mounting concerns, Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka has tabled amendments exempting financial institutions supervised by the Central Bank, as well as medical, education, and religious institutions from the Bill’s provisions.
Despite these adjustments, critics continue to argue that the core regulatory framework remains overly expansive and potentially restrictive.
Government officials and supporters within the ruling establishment have defended the Bill as a necessary safeguard against foreign interference and covert influence operations, maintaining that similar regulatory mechanisms exist in other jurisdictions.
The NRM Parliamentary Caucus has also positioned the legislation as an implementation tool for constitutional sovereignty principles.