By Peter Kahindi

TO DEBATE OR DISCUSS national issues it is sometimes best to identify what you can all agree on before the points of disagreement and conflict.

Already, I have seen several debates and exchanges about the recently introduced Protection of Sovereignty Bill 2026 (PLEASE check that you are reading the correct version EVEN in that link there) and they are mostly set with one type of concrete. 

Yet, according to the Title of the Bill, the main objective is the protection of the sovereignty of the people of Uganda. 

Yet, according to the Title of the Bill, the main objective is the protection of the sovereignty of the people of Uganda. 

Further, using my legal hat, the objective is also to designate the department responsible for peace and security as the responsible entity for the registration and regulation agents of foreigners, to provide for the protection of the sovereignty of Uganda, to provide for the registration of agents of foreigners and to regulate the funding and any other assistance to agents of foreigners.

What can we agree on, in this Bill?

First, Uganda is still a young democracy, with all the vulnerabilities that come with infancy. 

No one can or should claim perfection. 

Be that as it may, the duty to protect this nation from certain forces lies with US – Ugandans.

Forces that are more aware about our potential than ourselves, in most cases.

We wield the power to determine whether or not this nation will grow or not.

Protection against any and all diversionary interests is a good place to start – internal or external. 

Second, the countries especially in the West, which have keen interest in the affairs of countries like Uganda (countries set on a certain economic growth trajectory) have switched tactics from direct military interventions or  assassination of political leaders, to a more subtle and disguised influence.

One tactic we know from the time the first foreigners – Arab or White Men – arrived; it is the maintenance of power and control through economics and financing. 

In the new dispensation it is much more hidden.

As recently as February 2025, the BBC ran a story in which several West African countries told of the manoeuvers France was making to maintain its stronghold on their governments through disguised support and financing for human rights causes yet the ultimate goal was economic control.

They termed this the “domination of the conscience.”

Countries take time to think about these strategies and the sensible ones take even more effort to see those strategies through. 

Your sovereignty is the FIRST thing OTHER people want, and value.

In the 21^st century, there are economic wars being fought that the ordinary citizen may not even be aware of because of how subtle they are set up. 

This is not just ‘colonialism’.

Third, every serious country must have mechanisms in place that protect it and its citizens against any ill-intended foreign intervention.

These mechanisms can be the enactment of laws as Uganda is attempting to, or by making sure the systems in place involving transfer of funds into the country are tightly monitored. 

This is not just for political purposes but to also comply with globally accepted money-laundering principles. 

Uganda is not the first country to do this.

Hungary, a country considered one of the advanced nations, enacted The Protection of National Sovereignty Act in 2024. Allow me to quote, verbatim, the background to this law:

“Illegal attacks on the sovereignty (of Hungary) are becoming more and more frequent. For years, there have been manifest attempts… at exerting influence by foreign organisations and individuals seeking to assert their own interests in our country, as opposed to Hungarian interests and rules…..In addition to several other cases, even the prime ministerial candidate for the united opposition himself declared that they had received millions of US dollars from the United States of America during the election campaign.

The Hungarian rules in place already prohibit political parties from accepting foreign support; however, the united opposition circumvented this rule in spring 2022 by using funds from abroad through their civil society organisations and companies engaged in political activities. To prevent similar cases, it is appropriate to tighten the applicable rules. Political power falling into the hands of persons and organisations who are dependent on a foreign power, organisation or person damages Hungary’s sovereignty and, at the same time, poses a major national security risk.”

The Act proceeds to criminalize the application of illegally sourced funds for political subversion under the guise of human rights. A person found guilty of the same may face up to three (3) years in jail – and that’s just a start.

In Norway, under the National Security Act, foreign-based organizations and individuals who wish to make any investment in Norway are subjected to a thorough investigation to rule out any ill intentions on the part of the foreigner that they are applying foreign source- funds into the country, at the cost of interfering with the politics and sovereignty of the country. 

The vetting applies to everyone, and the inspiration is to keep their sovereignty intact.

Many other countries have different measures in place to protect their sovereignty.

Uganda, given its fair assessment of the circumstances measured against the potential risk associated with foreign sponsored negative activities, has taken the route of enacting the Protection of Sovereignty Bill. 

Countries take different approaches to issues and this is what actually forms sovereignty.  

In Uganda’s considered opinion, the spirit behind the Protection of Sovereignty Bill is the dire need to streamline activities in Uganda that are sponsored or promoted by foreigners. 

In principle, unless one has ulterior motives – and these can range from political subversion, to economic, to moral and even professional impropriety – then one should not have an issue with this Bill. 

But one can question some aspects of it – which is where the debate and discussion should happen. 

We are being given an opportunity to represent those whom we may find ourselves representing in a straightforward and transparent manner. This is why, I believe, the framers of the Bill went into as much detail as they did in Part III on the registration requirement.

There has also been debate around Clause 22 on the Restriction of Funding from Foreigners, with some arguing that the 20,000 currency points (or UGX.400,000,000) per year is a very low threshold, given the magnitude of some of the (especially) syndicated large cross-border transactions. 

This argument holds water and it should be taken under advisement by the framers because whereas it is founded in good faith, perhaps a distinction should be made so that the threshold of the regulated amount per year is determined by the nature of circumstances, instructions, or purpose. 

A debate on coming up with different bands or tiers may be welcome here.

These are the points of disagreement we should focus on – NOT the Bill and its necessity. 

This Bill is not meant to act independently of other laws in this country.

For instance, there is an outcry about the definition of a foreigner which includes a Ugandan citizen living abroad. 

My understanding of this definition is that one’s citizenship status is determined by the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda as the definitive, overriding and final reference point. 

There are acts of Parliament which, by the very nature of the circumstances they are addressing, are forced to define one’s status in order to draw clarity – for purposes of enforcement of those Acts. 

The definition of a foreigner in the Bill is designed to cater for Ugandan citizens living abroad who are in a position where they have to promote or fund businesses, causes, developments in Uganda, but this definition does not strip them of their citizenship, because that is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.

All in all, this Bill is not “the first of its kind,” but even if it were, nothing stops Ugandans from doing what Ugandans determine is right by Ugandans. 

That is what sovereignty is all about: self-determination. 

We should work together to improve it where we deem it insufficient, excessive or where we feel there might be constitutional contradictions. 

But, it is much needed and the time is now.

For God and My Country.