A group of 14 activists, politicians, journalists and civil society figures has petitioned the Constitutional Court of Uganda seeking to have the newly enacted Protection of Sovereignty Act declared unconstitutional, arguing that it infringes on core democratic freedoms and unlawfully expands executive control over civic activity.
he petition, filed this week, challenges the law on multiple grounds, including alleged violations of freedoms of expression, association, assembly and political participation.
The applicants include former Opposition Leader in Parliament Winnie Kiiza, Mityana Municipality MP Francis Zaake, and journalist Arnold Anthony Mukose, alongside other civil society actors.
Law under scrutiny
The contested law, formally known as the Protection of Sovereignty Act, No. 7 of 2026, was passed by Parliament on May 5, assented to by President Yoweri Museveni on May 17, and commenced on May 22 after being tabled in April.
According to court filings, the petitioners argue that the legislation was fast-tracked and contains provisions that blur the line between lawful dissent and disloyalty to the state.
They take issue particularly with definitions of “interests of Uganda” and “foreign interests,” which they say are tied too closely to government policy, effectively criminalising disagreement with state positions.
Core constitutional arguments
The petitioners argue that several sections of the Act use vague and overly broad language, including terms such as “economic sabotage,” “disruptive activities,” and “ideologies inconsistent with the Constitution or cultural norms.”
They contend that such wording fails the constitutional requirement for clarity in criminal law and gives excessive discretion to state authorities, particularly the Minister responsible for implementation.
The group also argues that sections of the Act create speech-related offences that penalise criticism of government policy, in violation of constitutional protections for freedom of expression and access to information.
Foreign funding and civic space concerns
A major part of the challenge targets provisions regulating organisations and individuals receiving foreign funding, which the petitioners say impose restrictive licensing requirements and surveillance mechanisms.
They argue that these measures effectively criminalise civic engagement and public mobilisation involving external support, thereby undermining freedom of association and peaceful assembly.
The petition further states that provisions requiring ministerial certification for those deemed “agents of foreigners” amount to an unconstitutional transfer of authority from Parliament to the Executive.
Allegations of discrimination and privacy intrusion
The applicants also claim the law discriminates against organisations based on funding sources and imposes unjustified reporting and inspection requirements that infringe on privacy rights.
They argue that the Act enables broad state access to personal and organisational data without sufficient safeguards.
Court relief sought
The petitioners are asking the court to nullify the contested provisions and issue an injunction preventing enforcement of the Act while the case is heard.
The Attorney General, named as the sole respondent, had not yet filed a formal response by the time of publication.
