Former East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) Member of Parliament and Democratic Party (DP) Vice President Fred Mukasa Mbidde has sharply criticised Parliament’s legislative focus, warning that lawmakers risk wasting valuable time on redundant proposals instead of addressing urgent national needs.
Speaking during NBS Eagle on Sunday, Mbidde questioned the rationale behind ongoing legislative efforts related to regulating foreign influence, arguing that Uganda already has sufficient legal frameworks to handle such concerns. He emphasised that the country’s limited resources should be directed toward more impactful priorities.
“We don’t have enough money in Uganda to do civic education. It has been NGO funding,” he said, underscoring the critical role foreign-supported organisations have played in supporting public awareness and civic engagement initiatives. He cautioned that undermining such funding streams without viable alternatives could have unintended consequences for citizen education.
Mbidde further argued that Parliament should focus on laws that directly contribute to national development rather than revisiting areas already covered by existing regulations.
“Parliament is going to waste time on something that already has enough laws to keep it in place. Let us make laws that are going to help the country move forward instead of wasting time on things that are not important,” he said, adding that leaders have a responsibility to “tell the people the right thing".
Mbiide’s remarks come at a time when Parliament is facing growing scrutiny over the proposed Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2025, a wide-ranging legislative framework intended to regulate foreign influence and strengthen national autonomy across multiple sectors.
The bill has received backing from members of the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) Parliamentary Caucus, who argue that it is necessary to protect state institutions and ensure that national decision-making processes remain free from undue external interference.
Details emerging from early drafts indicate that the proposed law would require organisations and institutions operating in Uganda to disclose all foreign funding within 14 days of receipt, while also granting the minister of internal affairs expanded powers to oversee, regulate, or potentially restrict foreign financial participation. The bill is also expected to introduce mechanisms aimed at preventing activities considered detrimental to Uganda’s sovereignty.
In addition to the 2025 proposal, the NRM Parliamentary Caucus has adopted the broader National Sovereignty Bill 2026, which seeks to reinforce Article 1, Sub-Article 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, affirming that all power belongs to the people and must be exercised in their interest. Government Chief Whip Hamson Obua defended the initiative following a caucus meeting held at State House Entebbe, describing it as consistent with international practices.
“We were colonised by the British; the UK had similar legislation. So, we are not reinventing the wheel,” Obua said, adding that the proposed law is intended to ensure that all foreign financial inflows into Uganda serve legitimate purposes and do not undermine national interests. He stressed that the government’s objective is to secure full sovereignty by putting in place safeguards against harmful external influence.
However, the proposed legislation has drawn criticism from sections of civil society and policy analysts, who argue that it bears striking similarities to earlier attempts to regulate NGO funding.
Observers note that both frameworks emphasise sovereignty, impose strict disclosure requirements on foreign funding within tight timelines, and expand the discretionary powers of the minister of internal affairs.
Critics contend that while the language of the bill may have evolved, its underlying objectives remain largely unchanged.
This convergence in legislative intent has sparked a broader debate about whether the Protection of Sovereignty Bill represents a genuinely new policy direction or simply extends existing regulatory ambitions under a different name.
Concerns have also been raised about the potential implications for civil society operations, particularly for organisations that rely heavily on external funding to carry out their activities.
