By Moses Ssentamu
The Protection of Sovereignty Bill 2026 has sparked intense debate across the country.
Framed as a shield against ‘foreign interference’, the law introduces sweeping restrictions on foreign funding, registration requirements for ‘agents of foreigners,’ and broad criminal provisions.
Among its most controversial elements is Clause 13, which prohibits “economic sabotage.”
According to the provision, an ‘agent of a foreigner who knowingly publishes false information or participates in any disruptive act that weakens, undermines, or damages Uganda’s economic system faces severe penalties: fines of up to Shs 2 billion for legal entities and Shs 1 billion for individuals, or imprisonment for up to 10 years.’
While referencing Clause 13, Counsel Ronald Katushabe of the Social Justice Center, Uganda states that journalism and activism is at stake.
“Investigative journalism and critical economic reporting now operate under a dark cloud. Clause 13 criminalizes the publication of information that could be interpreted as damaging economic viability, causing disruption, insecurity, or instability. A story on corruption in public procurement, rising debt levels, inflation pressures, or governance failures in key sectors such as agriculture or banking could be labeled ‘economic sabotage’ if it leads to investor caution, currency fluctuations, or public discourse that the government deems harmful,” he says.
“Media houses, many of which rely on foreign advertising, partnerships, or grants, risk being classified as foreign agents. This exposes them to mandatory registration, funding caps, and director-level liability.”
Self-censorship is already emerging, with editors likely to avoid hard-hitting stories on economic mismanagement to evade billion-shilling fines or lengthy jail terms.
According to Mr Katushabe, a weakened Fourth Estate, reduced public accountability, and diminished investor confidence will prevail as transparent reporting dries up.
Human rights defenders, environmental campaigners, and governance activists frequently highlight policy shortcomings that affect the economy — land evictions impacting agriculture, poor service delivery fueling protests, or critiques of mega-projects. Under the Bill, such activities can easily cross into ‘disruptive acts’ undermining economic stability.
Activists receiving any foreign support (common for capacity building or advocacy) face the double burden of foreign agent labeling and potential sabotage charges. The law’s breadth turns legitimate dissent into a high-risk endeavor, potentially silencing voices on issues like youth unemployment, public debt, or climate impacts on farming communities.
Churches and mosques often receive remittances from diaspora congregations or international faith-based partners for humanitarian work, education, and health programs.
The Bill’s expansive definition of ‘agents of foreigners’ can encompass entities receiving such funds, including diaspora contributions now viewed suspiciously.
Sermons or public statements addressing poverty, corruption, inequality, or government policies affecting congregants’ livelihoods could be construed as weakening economic stability.
A religious leader calling out mismanagement of public resources might face accusations of economic sabotage.
This threatens the moral and social advocacy roles these institutions have historically played, while burdensome registration and funding approvals could strain operations and limit community support.
Non-Governmental Organizations, heavily reliant on international donors for health (HIV, malaria), education, agriculture, and governance projects, face the harshest immediate impacts.
Mandatory pre-approvals for grants, public disclosure of funders, registration of staff as potential foreign agents, and criminal liability create a bureaucratic nightmare.
Uganda’s Protection of Sovereignty Bill, especially Clause 13, promises national protection but delivers a bitter restriction on independent voices. Journalists, activists, media houses, faith leaders, and NGOs — pillars of accountability and service delivery
About The Author
