By Karim Were
Facing mounting criticism from civil society, investors, and political actors, the Ugandan government has moved to significantly recalibrate its controversial Protection of Sovereignty Bill, signaling a strategic retreat from some of its most contentious provisions.
Rather than withdrawing the bill ahead of its anticipated parliamentary showdown, the Attorney General introduced sweeping amendments that fundamentally reshape how the law would operate—particularly in defining who qualifies as a “foreign agent.”
In a notable shift, Ugandan citizens are no longer at risk of being broadly labeled as foreign agents. The revised definition now targets only individuals who act directly on behalf of foreign entities, under their control, and with financial backing from them. This narrowing appears designed to counter fears that the original bill could be used to target ordinary citizens or civil society actors.
At the same time, the government has widened the range of activities that could trigger scrutiny. These now include political engagement or actions perceived to advance foreign interests in ways that conflict with Uganda’s national priorities—raising fresh questions about how political organisations will navigate funding and partnerships.
However, the amendments also introduce a layer of reassurance for key sectors of the economy and society. Financial institutions, media houses, professional bodies, health facilities, academic institutions, and religious organisations are now explicitly exempt—provided their foreign funding supports legitimate, regulated activities. This carve-out is widely seen as an attempt to calm fears of disruption in essential services and investment flows.
Further easing concerns, the government clarified that routine financial inflows such as foreign direct investment, remittances, trade financing, and humanitarian aid will not be restricted unless there is credible suspicion of wrongdoing. This provision appears aimed at preserving Uganda’s attractiveness to international partners.
Crucially, the revised bill raises the legal threshold for prosecution. Authorities will now be required to prove deliberate intent to undermine national interests, marking a departure from earlier wording that critics warned was overly broad and open to abuse.
The amendments also tighten enforcement language, replacing vague references to “a person” with the more specific “agent of a foreigner,” thereby limiting who can be held liable.
Additionally, the responsible minister has been granted authority to expand exemptions through future regulations, giving the government flexibility to respond to evolving concerns without reopening the law.
Taken together, the changes suggest a government attempting to strike a delicate balance—retaining the bill’s core objective of safeguarding national sovereignty while mitigating fears of overreach that had sparked
widespread opposition.
