CONTACT US
CONTACT US
Sovereignty Bill
Home Archive by Category "Sovereignty Bill"

Category: Sovereignty Bill

WhatsApp Image 2026-05-02 at 11.52.33
Sovereignty Bill

The Sovereignty Bill’s Achilles heel: an invalid certificate of financial implications.

By Dr. Sarah Bireete

The Attorney General has significantly amended the controversial Protection of Sovereignty Bill, but no amount of redrafting can heal the Achilles heel of the Bill: the Certificate of Financial Implications that accompanied it into Parliament does not comply with the law. The Bill is therefore invalid.

What is a Certificate of Financial Implications, and why does it matter?

Before any Bill can be introduced in Parliament, the law requires it to be accompanied by a Certificate of Financial Implications, a document issued by the Minister of Finance that tells Parliament what the Bill will cost, what revenue it might generate, and how it will affect the economy. This requirement is in the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and reinforced by the Guidelines for Financial Clearance issued by the Ministry of Finance.

The certificate is the essential mechanism by which Government shows to Parliament, and by extension, the country, that a Bill’s financial consequences have been considered and can be met. Without it, Parliament is legislating blind.

What must a valid certificate have?

The PFMA requires the certificate to do three things: show the estimates of revenue and expenditure over at least two years and show the impact of the Bill on the economy. The Guidelines then prescribe a rigorous analytical framework to make the economic impact assessment.

What is wrong with the certificate for the Sovereignty Bill?

The certificate issued for the Sovereignty Bill falls short of these requirements in every respect.

The certificate shows an added financial burden of Shs 29 billion but presents this as a single aggregate sum. There is no itemization, no underlying method, no time frame, and no distinction between capital and recurrent expenditure. This is precisely the kind of opaque lump-sum presentation that the Guidelines were designed to prevent.

The certificate falsely claims that the Bill “is not anticipated to directly generate revenue to Government” yet the Bill creates multiple revenue streams: registration and renewal fees, fines, forfeiture of funds, and penalties payable to the Consolidated Fund. In fact, the Bill has the highest fines in Uganda’s legislative history. The Uganda Law Society showed all of these revenue mechanisms and accused the certificate of presenting “only the expenditure side of the fiscal equation.”

Furthermore, the description of the Bill contained in the certificate did not match the actual contents of the Bill and included several concepts that do not appear anywhere in the Bill itself raising the question of whether the certificate was prepared with reference to the correct text at all.

Most critically, the certificate has no economic impact assessment whatsoever. Its treatment of the Bill’s impact on the economy is limited to a single paragraph asserting that the Bill will “strengthen Uganda’s policy autonomy and national security architecture.” This is not an economic impact assessment. It does not engage with any of the macroeconomic consequences that the Bank of Uganda later showed in devastating detail.

What did the Bank of Uganda say?

The Bank of Uganda’s technical assessment warned that the Bill was an economic disaster a voluntary shock that could destabilize the balance of payments and lead to a massive depreciation of the shilling. The Bank warned of the risk of FATF grey-listing, loss of correspondent banking relationships, and the criminalization of critical economic research through the Bill’s “economic sabotage” offense, asking pointedly whether the Bank’s own publications on inflation or currency depreciation could be prosecuted. The Bank warned that the Bill risked “reversing three decades of successful financial development.”

None of these concerns, not one, appears in the certificate. The Guidelines require stakeholder consultation, economic impact modelling, risk assessment, and distributional analysis. Had any of these steps been taken, the Bank of Uganda’s concerns would have been identified, quantified, and disclosed to Parliament before the Bill went ahead. They were not.

What is the legal consequence?

A document that does not satisfy any of the substantive requirements of the PFMA is not a “certificate of financial implications” within the meaning of the statute. It is a non-certificate, a document that bears the label but lacks the substance. A Bill that proceeds in such circumstances contravenes a mandatory statutory requirement and an essential step in the legislative process.

There is a counterargument. In Fox Odoi-Oywelowo v Attorney General, the Constitutional Court held that the economic impact requirement “does not go to the root of the certificate” and that non-compliance with it would not vitiate the constitutionality of the resultant Act. The Court characterized the certificate’s function as being primarily concerned with budgetary compliance. The Court also relied on a deeming provision in the statute, which provides that a certificate is deemed issued after 60 days even if none has been produced, to reason that if total absence of a certificate does not vitiate a Bill, partial non-compliance cannot either.

In Male Mabirizi v Attorney General, while the Supreme Court agreed with the arguments on the importance of the certificate, it resolved the problem by striking out only those amendments that were not supported by a valid certificate.

These arguments are distinguishable. The Bill in issue in Fox Odoi concerned homosexuality, and Bill in Male Mabirizi concerned age limits for the presidency. In Fox Odoi, the certificate deficiency was limited to the omission of an economic impact assessment for a law whose fiscal consequences were genuinely minimal. The Sovereignty Bill is a different kettle of fish altogether precisely because of its potential economic impact. Its certificate also fails on nearly every statutory requirement: wrong concept of the Bill, no itemized costing, no revenue identification, factually incorrect revenue assessment, no economic impact analysis, no stakeholder consultation, and no risk assessment. A certificate deficient in every respect cannot be equated with one that merely omits a single subsidiary element.

Moreover, the deeming provision addresses the mischief of executive inaction, preventing the Minister from vetoing a Bill by simply refusing to issue a certificate. It does not authorize the Minister to issue a certificate devoid of content and thereby circumvent the statutory requirements that Parliament itself enacted.

What should happen now?

The Bill is scheduled for plenary debate. But the certificate accompanying it has still not been reissued, corrected, or supplemented. In typical fashion for public officers, Minister Lugoloobi, has ignored his constitutional duty of accountability to the people and left the Uganda Law Society letter still unanswered.

Parliament is being asked to legislate on a Bill with macroeconomic consequences unknown, unquantified even after the stark warnings of the central bank.

Even the amendments now proposed by the Attorney General must be subjected to a fresh review of financial implications. Amendments that alter the regulatory architecture inevitably change the fiscal equation, and Parliament cannot carefully consider those amendments without knowing their cost.
Parliament should halt further consideration of this Bill until a certificate is issued that complies with the PFMA and the Guidelines, one that itemizes costs, quantifies revenue, assesses economic impact, consults the Bank of Uganda and other stakeholders, and discloses the risks that Parliament needs to understand before it votes.

The legal archers stand ready and aplenty with their bows primed, should this Achilles of a Bill attempt to enter the law books. Must history repeat itself?

Dr. Sarah Bireete is the Executive Director of Center for Constitutional Governance.

Read More
ccgea May 2, 2026 0
WhatsApp Image 2026-05-01 at 12.19.33
Sovereignty Bill

Why the Sovereignty Bill must be withdrawn.

By Phillip Karugaba

There is an unwritten rule, supported by parliamentary precedent, that where substantial amendments are made to a Bill, that Bill must be withdrawn, redrafted, re-gazetted and reintroduced to Parliament at first reading.

The rationale for this rule is that the Bill is no longer that which was presented to the public, and the public have not had an opportunity to comment on the amendments.

Such withdrawal was done by the Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka on the Public Service Pension Fund Bill, on May 23, 2023 before the Deputy Speaker Hon. Tayebwa, and for the Sexual Offenses Bill on 19 February 2019, before the Deputy Speaker Hon. Jacob Oulanyah (RIP).

In neighboring Kenya, the Finance Bill 2023 was nullified by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that 18 substantial amendments were introduced on the floor of Parliament, bypassing the legislative process for public participation.

Applied to the facts of the Sovereignty Bill, the proposed amendments recast the whole foundation of the law. The key definitions and the application clause of the Bill that are the heart and engine of the Bill, have been fundamentally recast. The definitions of “foreigner” and “agent of a foreigner” Clause 2(2) of the Bill, which set the scope and application of the law have been fundamentally changed to focus on engagement in political activities rather than the principal-agent relationship in the original Bill. 5 new definitions of “foreign policy”, “government policy” “political activities”, “interests of a foreigner”, “interests of Uganda” have been introduced. Clause 2(2) on application of the Bill has been amended to introduce (4) and (5) creating massive exemptions of categories of monies that are exempted from the Bill.

The change in scope and application of the bill is also amplified by the letter of His Excellency, the President on the Bill in which he disassociated himself from the current Bill and directed the Chief Whip Hamson Obua and the Chairpersons of the relevant Parliamentary Committees “to make the Bill concentrate on the sovereignty of policy-decision-making and not to meander in the areas of the freedom of private enterprise transfers private money transfers of church donations”.

The Bill with amendments is therefore a new proposition, fundamentally different from its original. In exercise of their sovereignty under Article 1 of the Constitution, and in particular the right to participate in their governance under Article 38, Ugandans have a right to public participation on the amended Bill. The Bill must therefore be withdrawn and reintroduced in full compliance of all legislative process.

The certificate of financial implications that never was

The law requires that a Bill, be supported by a certificate of financial implications, stating the cost of implementation of the Bill, and the economic impact that the Bill will have in application. The certificate that accompanied the of Sovereignty Bill was signed by Minister Amos Lugoloobi. It achieved neither of the above and was no certificate in law. The certificate wrongly states that the Bill will not generate revenue, yet the Bill provides for application and renewal fees, for certificates of registration of foreigners and prescribes the highest penalties in Uganda’s entire legislative history, as high as USD 1 million. The certificate also fell short on assessment of the economic impact of the Bill.

As was ably demonstrated by Mr. Michael Atingi-Ego, Governor Bank of Uganda, the Bill is an “economic disaster”, a “voluntary shock” with potential to upset Uganda’s balance of payments position, eroding our foreign reserves and risking a massive depreciation of the Uganda Shilling. This would jeopardize the very sovereignty the Bill purports to preserve.”

The case for a new certificate and full consideration of the economic impact of the Bill by government is made doubly so by the amendments to the Bill. Hopefully the new certificate will be issued in full consultation with the Bank Of Uganda and other agencies such as the Financial Intelligence Authority and the Insurance Regulatory Authority.

Constitutional conflict issues

The constitutionality of the Bill even as amended remains deeply contentious. Starting with Article 1, the Bill inverts the whole concept of sovereignty of the people, taking way fundamental rights of the people and making them subject to the permissions of a single appointed official, the Minister responsible for Internal Affairs.

The offense of economic sabotage in Clause 13, also offends Article 29(1)(a) on freedom of speech and of expression, and flies wholly in the face of the decision of the Supreme Court in Charles Onyango Obbo v AG that nullified the offense false news and the decision of the Constitutional Court in Alternative Digitalk v AG which establishes a new standard for freedom of speech anchored in Uganda’s international treaty obligations. It is absolutely incredible that the Bill seeks to reintroduce offences similar to those already nullified by our highest courts.

The Clause 7 restrictions from engaging in influencing government policy offend Article 38 on the right to participate in the affairs of government and to influence the policies of government.

Regulatory fragmentation and already existent laws

In several respects, the Bill, seeks to reenact provisions, already existent in other laws, such as the Political Parties and Organizations Act and the Non-governmental Organizations Act. The result is a regulatory mishmash and a compliance nightmare. The same circumstances are governed by different laws, with different reporting requirements and different criminal sanctions that can only leave the citizen subject to the law, bewildered.

Bill is still not on the Parliament website

It remains a deep source of puzzlement and anguish that with all the public interest in this Bill, it is still not available on the website of Parliament.

Read More
ccgea May 1, 2026 0
92754492-2ab9-45e4-8701-b38f1fdf2060
Human RightsSovereignty Bill

Rebuttal: The Anti-Sovereignty Bill Is Not Protection — It Is a Constitutional Coup.

By Asiimwe Anthony

Since 6AM today, my phone has been inundated with calls from the Bar, the public, and the press.

They are furious at the 923-word article by Enoch Barata in New Vision of 20 April 2026 defending the so-called Sovereignty Bill. They demand a scorching rebuttal.

Enoch Barata is not just a lawyer. He is the Director of Legal Services of the National Resistance Movement.

This is my rebuttal, as Vice President of the Uganda Law Society.

The NRM Legal Director’s defence of the so-called National Sovereignty Bill (in reality the Anti-Sovereignty Bill) presents a familiar script: “the world is changing, foreign interference is real, Uganda must adapt.”

But beneath the polished references to elitist acronyms such as FARA, FICA and the global trends he cites, lies a simple constitutional truth that the article conveniently ignores.

Sovereignty in Uganda belongs to the people, not the Government. But who are the people?

The people are the voters from whom NRM hid this sovereignty-altering Bill during the recent elections. The draconian bill it is rushing to pass while Parliament is closing. The people are the millions of voters who will not get to read Barata’s good English in the government’s 20,000-circulation English language newspaper.

The people are the multitudes of rural and urban poor victims of NRM’s 30-year failure to implement Article 4 of the 1995 Constitution: the state obligation to provide every citizen with a translated copy of the Constitution in their local language, plus a permanent programme of civic education.

Article 1 of our Constitution is unambiguous: “All power belongs to the people who shall exercise their sovereignty through their will and consent.”

The Bill does not protect this sovereignty. It transfers it to the Executive by letting the Minister and a new secret Department of Peace and Security decide “Government interests” and punish dissent. That is not safeguarding sovereignty — it is overthrowing it.

The referendum requirement is fatal.
Any law that alters the basic structure of the Constitution — especially the location of sovereignty itself — must be approved by the people in a national referendum under Article 260(2). This Bill makes exactly those changes without ever asking Ugandans to vote. It is therefore dead on arrival: unconstitutional, null and void. No amount of international comparison can cure that defect.

The Bill fails every international human-rights litmus test.
Even if the procedural flaw were ignored, the substance collapses under established standards:

R v Oakes proportionality test (the gold standard for justifying limits on rights): The Bill’s unverified objective may sound “pressing,” but its means are arbitrary, unfair and irrational. It is not rationally connected to any genuine threat — it sweeps in ordinary criticism, diaspora voices and legitimate NGO work. It fails minimal impairment and proportionality: the harm to free speech, association and political participation grossly outweighs any benefit.

R v Big M Drug Mart principle: Laws cannot impose a state ideology or chill the free exercise of fundamental rights. This Bill does precisely that by criminalizing criticism of Government policy as “economic sabotage” and redefining Ugandans abroad as “foreigners.”

UN Human Rights Committee General Comment 34 (Article 19): Restrictions on expression must be precisely drafted, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate. Vague, overbroad provisions that grant unfettered executive discretion — exactly what this Bill contains — are classic violations. Criticism of Government is the lifeblood of democracy, not a crime.

UN Special Rapporteur Maina Kiai’s reports: Kiai repeatedly warned that “foreign agents” registration schemes and foreign-funding restrictions are tools to stigmatize, burden and criminalize civil society. They violate the right to freedom of association (ICCPR Article 22) because access to foreign funding is an integral part of that right. He documented how such laws — often sold as “transparency” — are in reality designed to silence independent voices. This Bill follows the exact playbook he condemned.

African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights principles: The Commission’s standards on freedom of expression, association and NGO regulation demand the same: any restriction must be necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Blanket criminalization and funding cut-offs fail that test.

The Director cites the United States, EU, Canada, Australia and Singapore as models. But those laws are narrow, focused on covert political influence by actual foreign principals, and subject to judicial oversight and transparency. They do not criminalize domestic criticism, brand citizens “foreigners,” or starve independent schools, hospitals and media of funds. Uganda’s Bill does all three — and more.

True sovereignty is self-determination by the people.
The Bill replaces “power belongs to the people” with “power belongs to Government.” It does not adapt to a changing world; it adapts the Constitution to the fears of those in power. That is not legislation for sovereignty — it is legislation against the sovereign people of Uganda. The very definition of a coup d’état!

The Uganda Law Society, through our Radical New Bar Governing Council led by President Isaac K. Ssemakadde, SC, writing from exile this morning, has already said it plainly in our cautionary statement: this Bill is an act of treason against the Constitution (Article 3). It must be rejected outright. The greatest act of patriotism today is to defend the 1995 Constitution from those who no longer respect it.

The author is the Vice President, Uganda Law Society​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​.

Read More
ccgea April 28, 2026 0