When it was first tabled for its First Reading on April 13, the bill sparked immediate concern from opposition politicians, lawyers, civil society organisations, business groups, and Ugandans abroad.
Many argued that its wording was sweeping enough to criminalise ordinary civic, political, and financial activity.
Government defended the proposal as necessary to shield Uganda from foreign interference in domestic affairs.
Supporters argued that foreign actors increasingly influence politics, governance debates, and public policy through funding, lobbying, and organised campaigns, and that the state needed stronger legal tools to regulate such involvement.
But the original draft quickly ran into backlash because of how widely it defined both “foreigners” and “agents of foreigners.” Critics, including the World Bank and Bank of Uganda, warned that the bill risked creating legal uncertainty around NGOs, media organisations, churches, businesses, activists, political parties, and even members of the Ugandan diaspora.
That backlash eventually forced significant amendments before Parliament passed the final version on Tuesday, May 5.
One of the most contentious provisions in the original bill was the definition of a “foreigner.” Clause 1 initially stated that a foreigner included “a Ugandan citizen residing outside Uganda.” That wording immediately alarmed diaspora communities because it appeared to classify Ugandans living abroad as external actors under the law.
The committees handling the bill eventually removed that provision entirely. In the version Parliament passed, Ugandan citizens living abroad are no longer classified as foreigners. The law now applies only to non-citizens, foreign governments, and organisations incorporated outside Uganda.
Uganda relies heavily on diaspora remittances, which contribute billions of shillings to the economy each year. According to the Economic Policy Research Centre, Uganda receives about $2.5 billion annually from diaspora remittances.
Under the passed bill, financial inflows such as remittances, foreign direct investment, humanitarian assistance, and trade are protected.
The second major controversy centred on how the bill defined an “agent of a foreigner.” In the original draft, the definition was extremely broad: a person could qualify as an agent if their activities were “directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidised by a foreigner.”
That wording drew criticism because it potentially captured almost any Ugandan organisation or individual receiving foreign funding, regardless of whether they were engaged in political activity.
NGOs receiving donor support, media houses funded by international grants, researchers working with foreign institutions, and community organisations supported by international partners could all theoretically fall within the definition.
The final version narrowed that definition significantly. Instead of focusing broadly on financing or supervision, the passed bill now ties the definition of an agent specifically to conduct under Clause 2, meaning a person becomes an agent only if they engage in the regulated political activities outlined in the law.
However, while Parliament narrowed the definition of an agent, it simultaneously expanded and clarified what counts as “political activities.”
In the original draft, Clause 2 broadly prohibited people from engaging in political activities in Uganda on behalf of foreign interests, but it offered limited detail about what those activities specifically included.
The amended version made those activities much more explicit. Political activities now include attempts to influence legislation, funding or campaigning for political parties or candidates, and activities intended to influence how Uganda is governed.
Supporters of the bill argued that the clarification was necessary because foreign influence often operates indirectly through lobbying, political financing, and governance campaigns rather than direct state interference.
Another area that changed substantially was the law’s scope and exemptions.
The original bill contained few safeguards for organisations operating in non-political sectors. Apart from diplomatic exemptions, there were limited protections for humanitarian, religious, academic, or development work.
This triggered fears that ordinary NGO operations could become entangled in registration requirements or accusations of foreign political influence.
The final version introduced more specific exceptions intended to shield organisations that are not engaged in political lobbying or attempts to influence state policy. The exemptions cover financial institutions, academic and research bodies, health facilities, and individuals receiving funds for legitimate commercial and domestic purposes.
Parliament also adopted recommendations exempting entities already regulated under existing laws, with the Committee report warning that the original bill risked creating duplication.
While the law still covers representation of foreign interests in Uganda, Parliament added guardrails aimed at preventing the legislation from paralysing non-political activities.
Financial oversight provisions also became a major battleground during debate.
The original bill proposed strict controls on foreign financial support. Clause 22 barred individuals or agents from receiving foreign financial support or loans exceeding twenty thousand currency points, roughly equivalent to Shs400 million, within a 12-month period without written approval from the minister.
Bank of Uganda officials warned lawmakers that poorly drafted restrictions could damage remittances, foreign exchange inflows, and investor confidence if ordinary international transactions became legally uncertain.
In response, Parliament revised parts of the financial oversight framework. Clause 22 was amended to require agents of foreigners to declare funds rather than seek approval from the Minister prior to receiving them.
Parliament also reduced penalties, cutting maximum imprisonment from 20 years to 10 years.
The passed bill also strengthened avenues for legal challenge. Under the original draft, there was limited clarity about how a person denied registration or approval could seek redress. The amended version in Clause 18 now explicitly allows aggrieved individuals to challenge ministerial decisions in court, including appeals to the High Court.
That addition is widely viewed as an attempt to address fears of unchecked administrative power.
Parliament also removed provisions such as mandatory mental and physical health examinations for applicants and inspection powers without court orders.
Even after the amendments, debate over the bill remains deeply polarised.
Supporters argue Parliament successfully refined the legislation into a more targeted national security law focused on political interference rather than ordinary civic activity. They say the final version closes loopholes that foreign actors could exploit to shape Uganda’s governance and political direction.
Opponents argue that despite the revisions, the law still grants broad powers to the state and contains definitions that could be interpreted expansively during politically sensitive periods.
It remains to be seen whether the chief sponsor of the bill, President Yoweri Museveni, signs it into law in its current form or returns it to Parliament for further changes.