The Inter-Religious Council of Uganda (IRCU) has strongly rejected the proposed Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, warning that it poses serious risks to religious freedom, civic space, and constitutional rights if passed in its current form.
Speaking at a press conference in Mengo, the IRCU—together with interfaith legal partners including the Muslim Centre for Law and Justice, the Uganda Catholic Lawyers' Association, the Uganda Christian Lawyers' Fraternity, and the Uganda Muslim Lawyers' Association—said the Bill is fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional.
Co-chair Apostle Joseph Serwadda said that although the Bill claims to protect national sovereignty, it instead transfers that sovereignty from the people to government authorities, in violation of Article 1 of the Constitution of Uganda 1995.
“The Bill purports to protect the sovereignty of the people, but in reality it usurps it and vests it in the government of Uganda,” Serwadda said.
The Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, which has passed its first reading in Parliament and is now before committee, proposes a framework requiring disclosure of foreign funding, expanding oversight powers of the Minister of Internal Affairs, and penalising actions deemed to undermine national sovereignty.
Under Clause 22, individuals or organisations receiving more than 20,000 currency points (about Shs400 million) in foreign funding within 12 months would require ministerial approval.
Violations attract fines of up to Shs4 billion for organisations and Shs2 billion for individuals, or imprisonment of up to 20 years.
The Bill also introduces mandatory registration for persons acting as agents of foreigners, with certificates valid for two years and renewable at the discretion of the Minister of Internal Affairs, who may also suspend or revoke registration.
The IRCU warned that these provisions could severely affect the operations of churches, mosques, NGOs, and faith-based organisations that rely on external funding for services in health, education, and agriculture.
“This clause gives government the power to control, monitor, and potentially take income from religious institutions, amounting to interference in their affairs,” Serwadda said.
He also warned that the Bill would undermine the “prophetic role” of religious leaders by discouraging commentary on governance and political issues.
One of the most contentious provisions is the Bill’s definition of “foreigners,” which includes Ugandan citizens living abroad. The IRCU rejected this as discriminatory and unconstitutional.
“A Ugandan citizen cannot be categorised as a foreigner,” Serwadda said, warning that the classification could affect diaspora remittances, a key source of household income and foreign exchange.
The Council also cited conflicts with the Bill of Rights under Chapter Four of the Constitution, including potential restrictions on freedom of assembly (Article 29), political participation, and privacy rights (Article 27).
It further argued that the Bill overlaps with existing laws such as the Data Protection Act, Anti-Money Laundering Act, and Public Finance Management Act, creating duplication of regulatory oversight already handled by agencies including the NGO Bureau, Uganda Revenue Authority, Financial Intelligence Authority, and Interpol.
The IRCU described the proposed penalties as excessive and inconsistent with constitutional sentencing standards.
Among its recommendations, the Council urged Parliament to revise vague definitions such as “economic sabotage” and “agent of foreigners,” remove provisions criminalising diaspora remittances, and limit expansive ministerial powers.
It also proposed strengthening existing institutions like the Financial Intelligence Authority instead of creating new regulatory structures.
“Government should strengthen public-private partnerships instead of stifling engagement and participation of NGOs, religious, and faith-based organisations in development,” the statement read.
The IRCU and its partners said they formally reject the Bill in its current form, warning that it risks shrinking civic space, weakening civil liberties, and creating legal contradictions within Uganda’s financial regulatory framework.