National Sovereignty Bill Seen as Modified Version of NGO Funding Measures

Uganda’s Parliament is at the centre of controversy following the emergence of the proposed Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2025, a broad legislative framework aimed at regulating foreign influence and affirming national autonomy across multiple sectors.

Supporters of the bill, which has backing from members of the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) Parliamentary Caucus, argue it is necessary to protect state institutions and ensure national decision-making remains free from undue external interference.

Details emerging from early drafts suggest the bill would require organisations and institutions to disclose all foreign funding within 14 days, grant the Minister of Internal Affairs enhanced powers to oversee or limit foreign financial participation, and introduce mechanisms to prevent activities deemed detrimental to Uganda’s sovereignty.

“If we are to protect the integrity of our institutions and the sovereignty of our people, we must build legal safeguards that help us assert control over how foreign resources interact with our national systems,” Government Chief Whip Hon. Denis Hamson Obua said recently, outlining Parliament’s legislative agenda.

According to New Vision, Uganda’s state-owned newspaper, published on 4th March, it states that Martin Luther Nyanzi a 16-year-old activist and budding media entrepreneur called for legislation to provide a legal framework for regulating and supporting community-based organisations (CBOs) and local non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

Critics argue that the Protection of Sovereignty Bill is essentially a modified version of the NGO funding initiative, noting that both measures share core features: a focus on sovereignty, requirements for NGOs to disclose sources of foreign funding within 14 days, and expanded regulatory powers for the Minister of Internal Affairs.

“It is like the NGO funding approach has simply been modified.

The wording and scope have shifted, but the core objectives remain the same controlling foreign funding, targeting NGOs, and giving the Minister of Internal Affairs more power,” a civil society analyst said, reflecting opposition concerns.

Observers point out that this convergence in legislative language and purpose has prompted debate about whether the new bill represents a genuinely new policy direction or merely extends existing regulatory ambitions under the banner of sovereignty.

Opposition figures and rights advocates have cautioned that broad regulatory frameworks could shrink civic space, constrain independent action, and limit the ability of NGOs and related organisations engaged in health, education, and community development to operate autonomously.

Government supporters counter that increased transparency and oversight are standard practice in sovereign policy frameworks globally and are necessary to ensure foreign funding aligns with national priorities.

As the Protection of Sovereignty Bill progresses through committee scrutiny, public hearings, and full parliamentary debate, the outcome is expected to define Uganda’s approach to foreign funding and sovereign governance for years to come.