By Praise Aloikin Opoloje
The Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, especially Clause 6, is raising serious questions about who is truly allowed to help solve Uganda’s problems.
By making it a crime for anyone outside government to perform functions listed in the Sixth Schedule, such as land management, environmental protection, health services, and education, the clause effectively says: “Only the State can govern.”
Although framed as a measure to protect national sovereignty, the Bill goes much further. It threatens to shut down partnerships and community initiatives that have quietly kept many parts of the country functioning for years. In doing so, it clashes with Uganda’s constitutional promise of decentralized, people-centered governance.
The 1995 Constitution was built on a clear principle: power and responsibility should not remain concentrated in Kampala. Article 176 entrenches decentralization so that local governments, districts, municipalities, and village councils, can make decisions and deliver services closer to the people who need them most.
Clause 6 turns this principle upside down. Instead of allowing local leaders to manage local issues, Clause 6(3) requires Cabinet approval in Kampala before any non-state actor can operate in these sectors. This means that even a district chairperson or community group responding to a local health crisis or cleaning up a polluted wetland would need permission from the center. That defeats the entire purpose of decentralization.
Clause 6(4) imposes penalties of up to 20 years in prison or heavy fines for acting without approval. Ordinary citizens, faith-based groups, youth associations, and local NGOs, the very people who often step in first when government is slow or absent, may now think twice before taking action. The fear of prosecution is real.
The likely result is a dangerous gap: local actors withdraw out of fear, while the central government, already overstretched, cannot possibly meet every need on the ground. This directly contradicts the Constitution’s vision of empowered citizens and responsive local governance.
For decades, Uganda has advanced not only through government effort, but through teamwork. NGOs, churches, mosques, private companies, and community groups have built schools, run health clinics, protected forests, and brought electricity and clean water to areas the government struggled to reach. Clause 6 puts all of that at risk.
The Sixth Schedule is so broad that almost any development activity could be interpreted as a “government function.” Add foreign funding to the equation, and many organizations may suddenly be viewed as “agents of foreigners.”
Even more troubling is the approval trap created by Clause 6(3). Imagine a ministry or district seeking to partner with an NGO during a malaria outbreak or flood emergency. They would still need Cabinet approval. In emergencies, such delays can cost lives.
Private businesses face similar risks. Heavy fines may discourage investment in public services. Gradually, the partnerships that have helped fill gaps in healthcare, education, and environmental protection could be squeezed out.
The Problem of “License Versus Approval.” Clause 6(5) appears to offer a narrow exception by stating that those operating under a “license, permit or other authorization” may be exempt. But this creates more confusion than certainty.
Most NGOs and community organizations are registered, but they do not usually hold special licenses declaring they are allowed to perform “government work.” The Bill leaves this vague, meaning the government could later decide, case by case, whether an activity is lawful.
Such open-ended power is dangerous. It invites arbitrary decisions. Uganda’s Constitutional Court has previously warned against laws that grant officials excessive unchecked discretion, especially where rights and freedoms are concerned.
From Partnership to Full Control. At its core, Clause 6 represents a major shift in how Uganda is governed. Instead of treating citizens, communities, and organizations as partners in development, the Bill treats them as potential threats requiring tight control from above.
It moves Uganda from a collaborative system, where many actors contribute what they can to a statist model in which government seeks to be the only player.
In a country where state resources and capacity are limited, this centralization is likely to create more problems than it solves: slower responses, wider service gaps, less innovation, and growing frustration among citizens who simply want to help their communities.
Conclusion. Clause 6 of the Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, is not just another regulation. It marks a fundamental change in direction. It undermines the decentralization promised under Article 176 and weakens the spirit of shared responsibility that has helped Uganda make progress despite many challenges.
Protecting sovereignty is important. Few would dispute that. But turning every act of community service, partnership, or local initiative into a potential crime is not the way to do it. Governance should not be a government monopoly. It should be a collective effort involving the state, citizens, civil society, and the private sector working together.
If this clause passes in its current form, it may weaken Uganda more than protect it by discouraging the very people who have long helped build the country.
No Comments yet!