Paris-Geneva, 28 July 2026 - On 17 May 2026, President Yoweri Museveni signed the Protection of Sovereignty Act into law, imposing sweeping restrictions on international funding and foreign engagement with civil society, democracy, and governance stakeholders. The Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders, a partnership of the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) and the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), calls for the repeal of the Act, which represents one of the most severe legislative assaults on civic space in Uganda's recent history and is fundamentally incompatible with the country's obligations under international human rights law.
The Protection of Sovereignty Act, 2026, signed into law by President Yoweri Museveni on 17 May 2026, has been presented as an effort to protect national sovereignty and deter foreign interference in Uganda’s internal affairs through the regulation of foreign funding and assistance. In practice, the Act constructs a sweeping apparatus of criminal liability, mandatory registration, and surveillance broad enough to capture any individual or organisation, whether they are a non-governmental organisation, a media outlet, or a private entity, that engages in the activities listed in Section 2(2) of the Act while receiving foreign funding or acting under foreign direction.
At the core of the Act lies the concept of "agent of a foreigner", defined in Section 2 as any person acting on behalf of, at the direction of, or with financial support from a foreign principal. It extends beyond the formal representation of foreign interests before government bodies to encompass the solicitation or disbursement of foreign funds for “political activities”, the recruitment of third parties, and, crucially, any attempt to influence or implement government policy without prior Cabinet approval, or to encourage public opposition to it. The breadth of this definition means that a human rights defender or civil society organisation receiving foreign funding may be designated an "agent of a foreigner" by virtue of conducting advocacy that is inherently political in the broad sense the Act implies.
This concern is compounded by the large scope of the definition of "political activities" (Section 1) which includes any activity aimed at influencing the enactment of legislation, the formulation of policy, or the decision-making of Government, as well as any activities aimed at influencing, imposing or normalising ideologies deemed inconsistent with the Constitution or with the customs and norms of communities listed in the Third Schedule to the Constitution. This last sub-definition in particular — vague, subjective, and untethered from any objective legal standard — creates the conditions for the persecution of human rights defenders working on gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and other issues that the government may characterise as contrary to "community norms."
In addition, the definition of "interests of Uganda," against which agents of foreigners are prohibited from acting, is explicitly tied in Section 1 to Government policy, effectively conflating the interests of the State with those of the ruling government. Any advocacy position that diverges from official Cabinet policy may thereby be construed as acting against "the interests of Uganda." This transforms advocacy, research, election monitoring, and public interest litigation into potential criminal acts carrying a fine of up to UGX 1 billion (approximately 234,000 Euros) or imprisonment of up to 10 years for individuals, and a fine of up to UGX 2 billion (approximately 468,000 Euros) for legal entities.
Three provisions of the Act are of particular concern. Section 2(2)(f) conditions any policy advocacy by foreign-funded organisations or defenders on prior Cabinet approval, effectively subordinating independent civil society to executive oversight and rendering meaningful scrutiny of government conduct structurally impossible. Section 13 criminalises the publication of "false information" or any act deemed to undermine Uganda’s economic system, without statutory definition or independent judicial oversight — a formulation broad enough to prosecute critical journalism, whistle-blowing, and evidence-based advocacy whose findings conflict with official positions. Section 21 establishes a mandatory declaration regime for foreign funding exceeding UGX 400 million (approximately 93,200 Euros) annually, with undeclared funds subject to State forfeiture. Oversight and enforcement powers are vested in the same Ministry responsible for introducing the Act, which creates an inherent conflict of interest and exposes civil society organisations to selectively motivated enforcement.
The Observatory notes that the Act mirrors so-called "foreign agent" and "sovereignty" laws adopted in countries such as Russia, that seek to stigmatise civil society groups by forcing them to register as paid agents of foreign interests, and comes amid broader concerns about shrinking civic space across the region. Similar laws are increasingly adopted in different parts of the world and often result in increased surveillance, judicial harassment, restrictions on access to funding, and other obstacles that hinder the legitimate work of human rights defenders and civil society organisations. The Observatory further notes that the Act is being implemented in an environment of intensifying repression against independent voices, including media, and against human rights organisations, with at least seven human rights organisations suspended in the lead-up to the January 2026 general elections.
The Observatory underlines that the Protection of Sovereignty Act, 2026 is incompatible with Uganda’s binding obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), in particular the rights to freedom of expression (Article 19), freedom of association (Article 22), and freedom of peaceful assembly (Article 21), as well as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The Observatory further notes that several provisions of the Act may violate Article 28(12) of Uganda’s own Constitution, which requires criminal offences to be defined with sufficient clarity to enable citizens to understand what conduct is prohibited — a requirement that vague terms such as "interests of Uganda," "disruptive activities," "political activities," and "false information" as used in the Act do not meet. In this regard, the Observatory welcomes the petition filed on 10 June 2026 before Uganda’s Constitutional Court by a group of 14 human rights defenders, politicians, journalists, and civil society actors seeking the nullification of the Act. The petitioners argue that the Act unlawfully equates criticism of government policy with disloyalty to the nation, contravenes Article 28(12) of the Constitution by failing to define criminal offences with sufficient clarity, and violates the constitutional rights to freedom of expression, association, assembly, and political participation. The Observatory calls upon the Constitutional Court to consider this petition as a matter of urgency.
The Observatory calls upon the Ugandan authorities to repeal the Protection of Sovereignty Act, 2026 in its entirety, or at minimum suspend its application pending a comprehensive review by an independent body in full conformity with international human rights standards. Ugandan authorities should also immediately and publicly commit that the Act will not be invoked against human rights defenders, journalists, researchers, lawyers, or civil society organisations, and guarantee that they can carry out their work freely, safely, and without fear of criminal prosecution, administrative harassment, or surveillance.
