NRM summons MPs over Sovereignty Bill as divisions deepen

The controversial Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, could be passed by parliament today amid deepening political fractures, procedural disputes, and mixed signals from President Yoweri Museveni.

The Bill, scheduled for its second and third readings today, Tuesday, May 5, comes before the House under a cloud of uncertainty following a dramatic standoff at a joint committee retreat in Munyonyo, and growing indications that consensus remains elusive, even within government ranks.

A leaked report from the joint committees on defence and internal affairs, and legal and parliamentary affairs, indicates that of the 56 MPs on the two committees, at least 20 did not append their signatures to the majority report recommending passage of the Bill.

Originally tabled on April 15, 2026, by state minister for Internal Affairs, David Muhoozi, the proposed law seeks to regulate “agents of foreign influence” through stringent registration requirements, funding thresholds, and penalties of up to 20 years’ imprisonment.

Government officials argue that the legislation is necessary to safeguard national sovereignty from external interference. However, critics, including opposition lawmakers, civil society actors, and sections of the ruling party, warn that its broad provisions risk undermining constitutional freedoms and shrinking civic space.

At the centre of the dispute is the Bill’s expansive definition of “foreign agents,” which analysts say could extend to non-governmental organisations, media houses, academic institutions, and even diaspora networks, raising fears of regulatory overreach.

Tensions peaked during a three-day joint retreat of the defence and internal affairs committee and the legal and parliamentary affairs committee, chaired by Wilson Kajwengye and Stephen Baka Mugabi, respectively.

Eleven of the 24 committee members demanded a clause-by-clause review of public submissions and amended drafts, arguing that lawmakers had not been given adequate access to critical documents before adopting the report.

“We do not want summaries. We must read the submissions ourselves to make an informed decision,” said Erute South MP Jonathan Odur.

Kilak South MP Gilbert Olanya went further, warning that adopting a report without proper scrutiny would “undermine the integrity of parliament.”

Despite the objections, the majority adopted the report in a contested vote, paving the way for both majority and minority reports to be tabled in plenary, a development that has exposed deep divisions within the legislative process.

The reported deployment of security personnel during the retreat, an unusual occurrence for committee proceedings, has further amplified concerns about procedural fairness and transparency.

Adding a new layer of complexity, President Museveni has distanced himself from aspects of the draft Bill, suggesting that it may not fully reflect Cabinet’s original position.

Political analysts interpret this posture as an attempt to shield himself from growing public backlash while retaining room to influence the final outcome of the legislation.

Timothy Chemonges, executive director of the Centre for Policy Analysis, argues that the President may be responding to widespread opposition, with reports indicating that a significant majority of submissions called for the withdrawal or substantial revision of the Bill.

“Distancing himself creates room for recalibration without outright rejection,” Chemonges noted.

He added that the move could also be aimed at pre-empting constitutional challenges, particularly in relation to provisions on sovereignty and freedoms of expression, association, and assembly.

Economic concerns have also emerged as a key point of debate. With Uganda receiving an estimated $2.5 billion annually in remittances, alongside heavy reliance on foreign direct investment and donor funding, critics warn that overly restrictive provisions could have unintended economic consequences.

Legal experts have also questioned whether the Bill duplicates existing laws already capable of addressing illicit financial flows and national security threats. Kawempe North MP and lawyer Elias Nalukoola cited legislation such as the Non-Governmental Organisations Act, the Anti-Money Laundering Act, and the Penal Code Act as already providing regulatory mechanisms.

“The danger lies in broad definitions that could capture legitimate actors and be misused against political opponents or civil society,” Nalukoola cautioned.

Veteran political activist Maria Matembe echoed similar concerns, arguing that the proposed law risks targeting the very citizens it purports to protect.

In a sign of mounting pressure within the ruling National Resistance Movement, Government Chief Whip Denis Hamson Obua convened an emergency caucus meeting this morning at 9.30 a.m. to harmonise positions ahead of the debate.

The urgency of the meeting reflects growing fears among some NRM legislators that tabling the Bill without internal consensus could trigger open dissent on the floor of parliament, an unusual but increasingly plausible scenario as the 11th parliament winds down.

While the joint committee report, yet to be tabled before the House, reportedly states that more than 60 stakeholders, including government institutions, private sector actors, civil society organisations, religious groups, and diaspora representatives, were consulted, dissenting MPs argue that many of the views raised were either ignored or inadequately reflected in the final draft.

The post NRM summons MPs over Sovereignty Bill as divisions deepen appeared first on The Observer.