Uganda MP Slams Sovereignty Bill as Ill-Timed and Constitutionally Flawed

The proposed Protection of Sovereignty Bill 2026 has ignited a fierce debate within Uganda, highlighting deep divisions over national autonomy and governance. Member of Parliament Eddie Kwizera's sharp critique underscores the significant concerns surrounding the bill's timing and constitutional soundness.

Kwizera's assertion that the bill's architects lack a proper understanding of public governance, particularly the distinction between state and popular sovereignty, points to a fundamental flaw in its conception. His call for withdrawal and broader consultation reflects a sentiment shared by many who fear the bill could be misused or misinterpreted.

“

Government programs and activities are implemented through public policy. The people who formulated the Protection of Sovereignty Bill 2026 failed to distinguish between the sovereignty of the people and that of the State.

President Museveni's intervention, clarifying his intentions via social media, attempts to assuage fears that the bill aims to stifle foreign investment or remittances. He emphasizes his commitment to Uganda's historical struggle for sovereignty and policy independence, framing the bill as a means to protect the nation's decision-making autonomy across various domains.

However, the draft legislation's broad regulatory scope, including enhanced government oversight of digital platforms and stringent reporting requirements for financial institutions, has drawn considerable criticism. The tension between the government's stated goals and the bill's potentially far-reaching implications remains a central point of contention, raising questions about the balance between national security and economic openness.

“

The money being requested is not a lot. We shall ensure that it is made available.