By Praise Aloikin Opoloje
The Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, tabled in Parliament, aims to shield Uganda’s political and economic independence by regulating foreign influence. It introduces mandatory registration of “agents of foreigners,” caps foreign funding at approximately UGX 400 million (about USD 106,000) per year under Clause 22, requires Cabinet or ministerial approval for policy-related activities under Clauses 6–8, and creates the offence of “economic sabotage” under Clause 13 for acts or publications that “weaken or damage” the economy or cause instability.
While protecting sovereignty is legitimate, international law doesn’t allow states to use it to erode fundamental rights. Uganda’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, require restrictions on rights to be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate in a democratic society. Human rights, particularly freedom of expression, association, and participation, are not subject to majority will or claims of national interest alone.
Under Article 19 of the ICCPR, freedom of expression includes the right to criticize government policy, expose corruption, and engage in public debate. Clause 13’s vague terms, such as “weaken,” “damage,” or “instability,” fail the requirement of legal certainty. The UN Human Rights Committee has stressed that democratic governance requires a free flow of information, including dissenting views. Criminalizing such activities with penalties of up to 20 years risks severe and chilling effects on journalism, protest, and whistleblowing.
Article 22 protects freedom of association, which includes the right to access resources necessary for an organization’s effective functioning. The funding cap and requirement for ministerial approval in Clause 22 give the Executive broad discretion to determine which groups survive. International standards prohibit restrictions that undermine the existence or core activities of associations. Such measures effectively allow the state to decide which civil society voices may operate.
The African Charter reinforces these protections through its emphasis on collective rights. Article 10 (freedom of association) and regional jurisprudence requires registration regimes not to become tools of suppression. Criminalizing unregistered activity or broadly labelling individuals and groups as “agents of foreigners,” including Ugandans in the diaspora, reverses the right and turns association into a state-controlled privilege. Articles 11 and 13 protect peaceful assembly and the right to participate in public affairs. Clauses requiring Cabinet approval for activities in key sectors or policy development (Clauses 6–8) centralize power and limit independent civic engagement. The African human rights system views active citizen participation, not passive compliance, as essential to democracy.
A common justification for such laws is that they reflect the will of the majority or protect national development. However, international human rights law, including General Comment No. 25 on Article 25 of the ICCPR, rejects this as a standalone ground for restricting rights. Human rights exist to shield minorities, dissenters, and vulnerable voices from majoritarian overreach. Development gains or sovereignty claims do not justify selective compliance with civil and political rights. The framework’s indivisibility means states cannot trade off one set of rights for perceived progress in others. Uganda’s obligations under the ICCPR and African Charter remain binding regardless of domestic political narratives.
No public emergency threatening the life of the nation has been declared, so the Bill cannot rely on derogation under Article 4 of the ICCPR. Ordinary limitations must therefore meet strict tests. The Siracusa Principles require that restrictions respond to a pressing public need, use the least intrusive means, not jeopardize the essence of the right, and be interpreted in favour of rights enjoyment. The Bill’s broad definitions, discretionary powers, heavy penalties, and wide scope over ordinary civic, economic, and digital activities appear disproportionate and risk casting a net over legitimate participation.
Article 25 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to participate in public affairs, directly or through organizations. This includes forming groups, holding meetings, criticizing policy, and engaging in political activity. The UN Human Rights Committee emphasizes that freedoms of expression, association, and assembly form the infrastructure of democracy. By constraining these freedoms to state-approved channels, the Bill risks turning elections into formalities rather than genuine expressions of the people’s will.
Protecting sovereignty against undue external interference is a valid aim, but it cannot come at the expense of rights Uganda has voluntarily undertaken to uphold. A confident sovereign state empowers citizens to debate, associate, criticize, and participate freely. In its current form, with vague offences, funding controls, registration hurdles, and broad executive discretion, the Bill risks undermining the civic space and democratic infrastructure essential to a rights-respecting society.
No Comments yet!