Uganda’s health civil society sector has fired back at the Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, warning Parliament that the proposed law is unnecessary, unconstitutional, and will cause economic damage the country cannot afford.
In a strongly worded public statement filed before the Joint Committee of the Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs and the Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Civil Society Organisations working in Uganda’s health sector have asked Parliament to decline the Bill entirely, and told the Government there is a better way.
We Support The Idea, But Not This Bill
The CSOs were careful to state upfront that they are not opposed to protecting Uganda’s sovereignty. “The protection of Uganda’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity is a legitimate object of legislation,” the statement reads. But they argue the Bill is simply not needed, because Uganda already has a full set of laws doing exactly what the Bill proposes, including the NGO Act, the Anti-Money Laundering Act, the Anti-Terrorism Act, and the Foreign Exchange Act, among others.
Their message to Parliament is blunt: if there is a gap somewhere, fix the law that already exists. Don’t pile a new, overlapping law on top of everything else.
The Definitions Will Swallow Everyone
One of the CSOs’ sharpest concerns is how loosely the Bill defines its key terms. Under the current drafting, a Ugandan hospital receiving funding from an international health foundation, a university in academic partnership with a foreign institution, a church receiving money from diaspora congregants, or even a business with a minority foreign shareholder could all be classified as “agents of a foreigner.”
That classification triggers the Bill’s full criminal machinery, including fines of up to UGX 4 billion for organisations and up to UGX 2 billion, plus a twenty-year prison term, for individuals.
The CSOs further noted that the phrase “prejudicial to or threatening the security of Uganda”, central to the Bill’s definition of “disruptive activities”, was already ruled impermissibly vague by the Constitutional Court in the landmark case of Andrew Mujuni Mwenda v Attorney General back in 2005. They are asking Parliament: why are we repeating a mistake the courts already corrected?
The Numbers Tell a Brutal Story
The statement leans heavily on economics to make its case, and the figures are difficult to ignore.
Uganda received USD 2.5 billion in diaspora remittances in 2025, equivalent to approximately 3.8% of GDP. The civil society sector contributes over UGX 4.5 trillion annually to the Ugandan economy and employs tens of thousands of Ugandans. The sector also co-finances critical national programmes including the HIV response.
The CSOs warned that Clause 22 of the Bill caps foreign funding at approximately UGX 400 million per year, a figure they say is far below the ordinary operating budgets of most Ugandan hospitals, universities and research institutes.
They also reminded Parliament of what happened just last year: when USAID and PEPFAR funding was disrupted in 2025, an estimated 15,000 health-sector workers lost their jobs and a UGX 600 billion gap opened in Uganda’s HIV response. The CSOs say this Bill, if passed, risks making that kind of disruption routine, and legal.
Warrantless Searches, Banking Penalties And Privacy Violations
Among the specific clauses the organisations flagged as deeply problematic: Clause 28 permits government inspectors to enter and search private premises, including hospitals and clinics, without a warrant, without prior notice, and without any protection for medical records or patient data.
Clause 21 creates a public register of funding sources, accessible by anyone who pays a fee, which the CSOs say cannot be reconciled with Uganda’s Data Protection and Privacy Act.
Clause 25 makes every bank, mobile money operator and payment service provider personally responsible for enforcing the regime, exposing them to UGX 4 billion civil penalties if they fail to do so.
What The CSOs Want Instead
Rather than a punitive new law, the CSOs proposed two alternatives. First, a joint Government-CSO national sensitisation programme on sovereignty, delivered through existing ministries, religious institutions, and community networks across all districts. Second, a domestic funding framework built over at least five years, including tax incentives for local philanthropy, a Uganda Public-Private CSO Basket Fund, and structured corporate social responsibility partnerships.
Their appeal to the public was equally direct. “The Bill affects not only specialised organisations but the churches, mosques, hospitals, schools, universities, market women’s associations, cultural institutions, burial societies, savings groups and community development associations through which ordinary Ugandans organise their lives,” the statement says. “We respectfully invite you to read the Bill, to form your own view, and to engage your Member of Parliament.”
The CSOs closed with a constitutional reminder that carries political weight in an election year: “Uganda’s sovereignty resides, under Article 1 of the Constitution, in the people of Uganda. It is best protected when the Government, Parliament and civil society stand together in its service.”
Parliament has been asked to reject the Bill. The Government has been invited to partner. And Ugandans have been asked to speak up.
