By Mwanje Gideon
Looking at the Protection of Sovereignty Bill, it is clear that we are attempting to catch both “big and small flies” in one legislative net. The bill is overly broad and risks strangling our economy, scaring away vital investment, and punishing the average Ugandan for the simple act of earning a living.
The problem stems from the dust of the recent elections. Although it has settled, the legislative aftershocks are only beginning. Questions about the validity of this bill are spreading across the country like rain in a tropical forest.
Last year, before the first ballot was even cast, I wrote an article in the Observer newspaper dated 20th August 2025 calling for urgent reforms to regulate campaign spending. My argument then, as it is now, is simple: if we truly wish to level the playing field in our democracy, we must follow the money.
After carefully studying the Attorney General’s article in the New Vision titled “Regulating foreign influence without stifling growth” dated Tuesday, April 21, 2026, it became clear that one of the common tools in such laws is funding bans—prohibiting foreign donations to political candidates and parties, as seen in countries like Singapore and the United States.
Many of the countries that have enacted such laws were specifically targeting election interference by foreign powers. This raises an important question: do we really need a Protection of Sovereignty Bill, or do we need a law that limits campaign funding?
In law school, we are taught that legislative drafting must be precise, addressing a specific “mischief” without causing collateral damage. The Protection of Sovereignty Bill fails this test. It appears to be a product of reactive anger rather than proactive planning. By attempting to regulate every foreign transaction and Ugandan income stream, we risk suffocating the very investment that keeps our youth employed. I support Uganda and respect its sovereignty, but this is not a law I can support—nor is it one my father in Bamunaniika, Luwero would support.
When a foreign NGO or investor fears that a vaguely worded law might criminalize their presence, they withdraw. The result is lost jobs and rising poverty. Sovereignty cannot be protected in a hungry population. If we are serious about achieving our Vision 2040 goals, this bill may instead undermine them.
The push for this legislation stems from allegations that several candidates received substantial foreign funding to bankroll their campaigns. This is the real “mischief.” We witnessed convoys stretching for kilometers and media campaigns costing billions of shillings—far beyond the legitimate earnings of a typical Ugandan politician.
The real threat to our political integrity is not a foreign grant funding a borehole in Gulu or a human rights workshop in Mbarara. It is the unchecked, untraceable campaign spending that allows external interests to effectively buy influence in our political system. That is where sovereignty is truly at risk.
Instead of a broad and contradictory sovereignty bill, what Uganda needs is a Campaign Funds Regulation Act. This is the real solution:
a) Transparency over paranoia: Rather than monitoring every citizen’s bank account, candidates should be required to declare the source of every shilling above a defined threshold.
b) Levelling the playing field: Recent elections showed how wealthy candidates can drown out grassroots leaders simply because they can afford the cost of mobilization. Sovereignty belongs to the people, not the highest bidder.
c) Protecting investment: A targeted law on election funding would allow legitimate foreign direct investment to continue flowing. Uganda can welcome investors while strictly prohibiting them from financing political campaigns.
It is important to acknowledge that the government’s perspective is broader. Issues of sovereignty are not limited to campaign financing; they also include terrorism financing, fraud, and tax evasion. However, these areas are already addressed under existing laws such as the Penal Code Act, Anti-Money Laundering Act, Anti-Terrorism Act, and tax legislation. What is missing is a clear legal framework governing campaign financing.
Rather than introducing a new and potentially conflicting law, the better approach would be to amend existing legislation where necessary and introduce targeted reforms to close the gap in electoral financing.
Way Forward
Legislation must be approached with a cool head, not a clenched fist. The unchecked flow of money into our elections is the real Trojan Horse. Without limits on spending and clear rules on contributions, our sovereignty risks being sold piece by piece every election cycle.
We should abandon broad, catch-all legislation that threatens economic stability and instead focus on laws that address the core issue: campaign finance. Only then can we ensure that political power is derived from the Ugandan voter—not foreign financial influence.
Our democracy is not for sale. Our laws must reflect that.
FOR GOD AND MY COUNTRY!
The author is a legal scholar at the Law Development Centre, Kampala.
