Uganda’s legislative process is guided not only by written rules but also by long established parliamentary practice. One such convention is clear. Where a Bill undergoes substantial amendments, it must be withdrawn, redrafted, re gazetted and reintroduced for fresh scrutiny. This is not a mere procedural formality. It is a safeguard for transparency and public participation.
Once a Bill is significantly altered, it ceases to be the same document that was initially presented to the public. Citizens have a constitutional right to participate in governance and must be given an opportunity to interrogate the revised proposal.
This principle has been respected before. In May 2023, Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka withdrew the Public Service Pension Fund Bill before Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa following substantial amendments.
Similarly, in 2019, the Sexual Offences Bill was withdrawn before Deputy Speaker Jacob Oulanyah under comparable circumstances. In neighbouring Kenya, the Court of Appeal nullified the Finance Bill 2023 after finding that major amendments had bypassed the required process of public participation.
The Sovereignty Bill in its current form fits squarely within this precedent. The proposed amendments do not merely refine the Bill. They transform it. Core provisions including the definitions that determine the scope and application of the law have been fundamentally recast.
Terms such as foreigner and agent of a foreigner, once grounded in a principal agent relationship, have been redefined to focus broadly on political activity. Entirely new concepts such as foreign policy, government policy, political activities, interests of a foreigner and interests of Uganda have been introduced.
Changes to the application clause have also created sweeping exemptions for certain categories of funds. These alterations reshape not just the mechanics of the Bill but its very intent.
This shift is further underscored by the position of Yoweri Museveni, who in a formal communication distanced himself from the Bill in its current form and directed that it be refocused strictly on safeguarding policy decision making. He cautioned against extending it into areas such as private enterprise, personal financial transfers and religious donations.
Taken together, these developments leave little doubt that the amended Bill is in substance a new legislative proposal. It must therefore be subjected to a fresh legislative process including full public participation as guaranteed under Articles 1 and 38 of the Constitution.
Equally troubling is the absence of a valid certificate of financial implications. By law, every Bill must be accompanied by a document outlining both the cost of implementation and its economic impact.
The certificate presented for the Sovereignty Bill, signed by Finance Minister Amos Lugoloobi, fails on both counts. It inaccurately claims that the Bill will not generate revenue despite provisions for registration fees and penalties, some as high as one million United States dollars. It also offers no meaningful assessment of the broader economic consequences.
This omission is not merely procedural. It is substantive. As highlighted by Michael Atingi-Ego, the Bill could trigger serious economic disruption, potentially affecting Uganda’s balance of payments, depleting foreign reserves and weakening the shilling. Such outcomes would undermine the very sovereignty the Bill claims to protect.
Given the scale of amendments, a new and comprehensive financial certificate developed in consultation with institutions such as the Bank of Uganda, the Financial Intelligence Authority and the Insurance Regulatory Authority is essential.
Even in its amended form, the Bill raises profound constitutional questions. It risks inverting the principle of popular sovereignty enshrined in Article 1 by subordinating fundamental freedoms to the discretion of a single appointed official. Provisions such as the offence of economic sabotage appear to conflict directly with Article 29 on freedom of expression.
Ugandan courts have already spoken on similar matters. In Charles Onyango Obbo v Attorney General, the Supreme Court struck down the offence of false news, while in Alternative Digitalk v Attorney General, the Constitutional Court reinforced protections for free expression in line with international obligations.
The attempt to reintroduce comparable restrictions through this Bill raises serious legal concerns. Restrictions on influencing government policy also clash with Article 38, which guarantees every Ugandan the right to participate in public affairs and shape national policy.
The Bill further risks compounding Uganda’s already complex regulatory environment. Several of its provisions duplicate or overlap with existing legislation such as the Political Parties and Organisations Act and the Non-Governmental Organisations Act. The result would be a fragmented legal framework with conflicting compliance requirements and penalties, creating confusion rather than clarity.
It is also deeply concerning that despite its national significance, the Bill remains inaccessible on Parliament’s official website. At a time when public engagement is most needed, this lack of transparency undermines confidence in the legislative process.
The Sovereignty Bill in its amended form is not the Bill that was originally tabled. It introduces sweeping changes with far reaching legal, economic and constitutional implications.
To proceed without withdrawal would disregard parliamentary precedent and erode the constitutional principles of transparency, accountability and public participation. Withdrawal is not a setback. It is a necessary step to ensure that any future law reflects both the Constitution and the will of the Ugandan people.
Written by Phillip Karugaba, a leading Ugandan corporate and commercial lawyer and Office Head at ENS Uganda. With over 25 years of experience, he is widely recognised for his expertise in capital markets, mergers and acquisitions, private equity, and infrastructure law.
