pressug.com News 24 7
Related Articles
KAMPALA – The People’s Front for Freedom (PFF) and the Uganda Medical Association (UMA) have strongly rejected the proposed Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, warning that its current provisions threaten constitutional order, public health systems, and professional freedoms.
The two groups presented their submissions Monday afternoon before the Parliamentary Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs, where the Bill is under scrutiny alongside the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee.
The Bill, officially gazetted on April 13 and tabled in Parliament on April 15, seeks to shield Uganda from foreign interference through strict regulations, including mandatory registration of individuals deemed “agents of foreigners,” prior ministerial approval for foreign funding exceeding UGX 400 million annually, and tough criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison or fines of up to UGX 4 billion.
Leading the PFF delegation, party president Erias Lukwago argued that passing the Bill in its current form would amount to a violation of the Constitution.
Lukwago told the committee that Parliament risks undermining Article 1, which vests sovereignty in the people, not the state. He warned that elevating the authority of the state above citizens effectively overturns the constitutional order.
He pointed to contradictions within the Bill, noting that while its objective claims to protect the sovereignty of the people, its provisions instead focus on protecting the state against foreign interests.
“The shift from people-centered sovereignty to state-centered control is dangerous and unconstitutional,” Lukwago submitted.
He further criticized vague definitions within the Bill, particularly the term “foreign interests,” arguing that the lack of clear criteria could open the door to arbitrary enforcement and abuse of power by authorities.
Lukwago also raised concerns about provisions that could criminalize ordinary professional activities. He cited examples where lawyers, legislators, and service providers could be forced to register as agents of foreign entities simply for engaging with international counterparts.
“This is an absurd and oppressive requirement that will affect even legitimate professional engagements,” he said.
He also warned that Clause 6 could inadvertently criminalize services such as healthcare or community support initiatives, creating confusion and legal risks for individuals and organizations.
On its part, UMA, led by president Frank Rubabinda Asiimwe, warned that the Bill could severely disrupt Uganda’s health sector, which heavily depends on international funding, partnerships, and research collaborations.
Dr. Asiimwe told lawmakers that critical health programs—including HIV, tuberculosis, malaria control, and immunization—could be affected by delays and restrictions introduced by the Bill’s approval and registration requirements.
He cautioned that the proposed law risks interrupting the flow of essential medical supplies, equipment donations, and technical support, all of which are vital in addressing persistent shortages in health facilities.
“The health system relies on rapid access to international support. Bureaucratic delays in approvals could cost lives,” he said.
UMA also warned that criminalizing aspects of international collaboration would conflict with medical ethics, particularly the obligation to prioritize patient care and timely treatment.
According to the association, the Bill could discourage health workers from participating in global networks that are crucial for responding to cross-border health threats such as Ebola and COVID-19.
The medical body further warned of long-term consequences, including a potential brain drain as Ugandan health professionals seek opportunities abroad due to restrictive conditions at home.
Dr. Asiimwe noted that the Bill could undermine research partnerships with institutions such as the Uganda Virus Research Institute and universities that rely on international grants.
He added that additional layers of vetting could duplicate existing oversight mechanisms, such as those by the Uganda National Council for Science and Technology, leading to regulatory paralysis.
“This could make Uganda less attractive for global clinical trials, denying citizens early access to life-saving treatments and vaccines,” he said.
Rights and Freedoms at Stake
Both PFF and UMA argued that the Bill, in its current form, infringes on fundamental constitutional rights, including freedom of association, professional independence, and academic inquiry.
They also warned that requiring professionals—especially medical practitioners—to operate under strict state control could erode trust between service providers and the public.
The two groups urged Parliament to reconsider the Bill and ensure it aligns with constitutional principles, particularly the protection of citizens’ sovereignty and rights.
They also called for a more transparent and consultative legislative process before the Bill proceeds to its Second Reading.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs, which is promoting the Bill, maintains that the proposed law is necessary to safeguard Uganda’s sovereignty from external influence. However, growing opposition from political actors, civil society, and professional bodies signals a contentious path ahead as Parliament continues its review.
Related
, https://pmldaily.com/news/2026/04/pff-doctors-challenge-sovereignty-bill-over-rights-and-health-risks.html
