The proposed Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2025, and recent NGO closures have raised alarm among civil society and opposition leaders, who warn that Uganda’s civic space could be sharply restricted under new laws targeting foreign-linked organisations.
Uganda faces growing concern over its civic space following the closure of several non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the earlier shutdown of the Democratic Governance Facility (DGF).
These moves come as government prepares the proposed Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2025, aimed at regulating foreign influence in the country’s governance and service delivery.
The bill seeks to penalise individuals or organisations deemed “agents of foreigners,” with fines of up to Shs2 billion or up to 20 years in prison for promoting foreign interests or operating without official approval.Legal entities face even heavier sanctions, including the forfeiture of assets linked to foreign funding.
Government officials defend the legislation as necessary to safeguard national sovereignty. A senior official involved in drafting the bill said it is intended “to ensure that Uganda’s policies and priorities are determined internally, without undue external pressure.”
“We cannot allow foreign actors to dictate how this country is governed,” the official said. “All engagements must be aligned with national interests and approved through the proper channels.”
Critics, however, warn that the law’s broad language could criminalise legitimate NGO work and stifle independent policy engagement. A Kampala-based governance analyst said the provisions are “extremely sweeping,” effectively requiring multiple layers of government approval, including Cabinet, for NGOs to operate or advocate.
The bill bars foreign-linked individuals or organisations from performing government-reserved functions—such as service delivery in health, education, and governance—without prior authorization.
Any attempts to influence policy outside government structures could constitute an offence, punishable by heavy fines or lengthy prison terms.
A local NGO official, speaking anonymously, described the proposed law as “a direct continuation of the DGF closure.”
“First, funding channels were cut off. Now the legal framework is being tightened to make it nearly impossible to operate,” the official said. “It’s not just regulation—it’s restriction.”
Opposition politicians have also voiced concern, warning that the bill could undermine democratic accountability.
“This law risks silencing critical voices under the guise of sovereignty,” said one Member of Parliament. “Civil society plays a key role in highlighting governance gaps. If you criminalise that, you weaken oversight.”
Economists and development experts caution that limiting NGO operations could have unintended consequences, particularly in sectors where civil society supplements government services.
“Many NGOs provide essential services that government cannot fully cover,” said an independent policy researcher. “If you restrict their operations or funding, the immediate impact will be felt by vulnerable communities.”
The bill further centralises policy-making, reserving the right to develop and implement policy exclusively for government ministries, departments, and agencies, all subject to Cabinet approval. External participation in government programs would require explicit authorization, sharply narrowing operational space for civil society and foreign-linked actors.
Despite criticism, government maintains that the law is meant to “streamline and regulate NGO activities in line with national priorities,” rather than eliminate them entirely.
Observers note that combined with past actions—such as the DGF closure—the sweeping provisions of the bill signal a broader tightening of state control over civil society.
Stakeholders are urging wider consultations to ensure that efforts to protect sovereignty do not come at the cost of civic freedoms and essential service delivery.
“The challenge is finding the balance between legitimate national interests and preserving the role of civil society in a democratic system,” one analyst said.
