The title, “Regulating Foreign Influence Without Stifling Growth”, which captions the article by Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka, published in the New Vision on April 21, 2026, captures the assumed legislative intent of the Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026.
The article goes further than the explanatory memorandum of the Bill by acknowledging that foreign influence is inevitable. It notes that such influence cuts both ways and can be beneficial or harmful.
Unfortunately, the argument is weakened by the overly broad nature of the Bill. Even if the Bill defined foreign influence, which it does not, it would still be difficult to distinguish between what is good, bad, or harmful.
This familiar pattern in Uganda’s law-making process is not surprising. Once again, the country is confronted with a government Bill marked by vagueness and inconsistency.
Because of this ambiguity, it can be argued that the Bill has already fallen victim to the very problem it seeks to address.
Its structure reflects significant borrowing from foreign legislation, raising questions about whether it is itself influenced by external legal frameworks.
A closer examination shows that the definition of “agent of a foreigner” appears to have been adopted from the Georgian Foreign Agent Registration Act of 2025.
That law defines an “agent of a foreign principal” as a person acting on behalf of, or under the direction or control of, a foreign principal, whose activities are substantially supervised, financed, or managed by that principal.
Clause 1 of the Ugandan Bill defines an “agent of a foreigner” in almost identical terms, referring to a person acting under the direction, request, or control of a foreigner, or whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, financed, or subsidised by a foreigner.
The differences in wording are minimal and largely cosmetic. Substituting the word “principal” with “foreigner” does little to change the substance of the definition.
Similarly, the requirements for registration, including disclosure of income received within the previous 60 days, mirror those found in the Georgian law in both language and structure.
Plagiarism in legislative drafting undermines legal integrity and authenticity. While it is acceptable to adopt common drafting language from model laws, directly replicating distinctive provisions without attribution raises serious concerns.
Although the Bill references several Ugandan laws, including the Constitution, the Anti-Money Laundering Act, the Diplomatic Privileges Act, and the Public Finance Management Act, it does not acknowledge the Georgian law from which key provisions appear to be derived.
Ironically, the Bill could be interpreted as falling within its own definition. If enacted, its authors could arguably be classified as agents of a foreigner, having influenced government policy using externally derived legal frameworks.
The definition of “person” in the Bill includes natural persons and does not exempt its drafters.
For this reason, the assertion that the Bill has a clearly defined scope is questionable. Its provisions are open to multiple interpretations, reflecting a lack of clarity, conciseness, and coherence.
Even if the Bill had incorporated exemptions for private and non-political activities, it would still struggle to escape the broader concerns associated with foreign agent laws.
Globally, such laws often have a chilling effect on civic freedoms. More balanced approaches tend to emphasise transparency, accountability, and safeguards for civil rights. The Ugandan Bill lacks these critical elements.
Recent international examples highlight the challenges. The Czech Republic’s proposed foreign agents law, introduced in March 2026, faced strong public opposition and was shelved.
Uganda’s Bill, tabled on April 13, 2026, has also generated significant public debate, with tens of thousands of largely critical responses across social media platforms.
In Georgia, similar legislation triggered widespread protests in 2023 before being reintroduced and enacted in 2025. The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe later concluded that the law failed to meet standards of legality, legitimacy, and necessity in a democratic society.
Canada’s Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act, passed in June 2024, has also faced implementation challenges despite stronger institutional frameworks.
These examples raise a key question. If countries with more developed systems face difficulties enforcing such laws, is Uganda prepared to do better?
There is a growing concern that the Bill has been rushed. Broader consultation is needed to ensure that any resulting law aligns with constitutional principles and democratic standards.
A law is only as effective as its implementation. Without public acceptance and practical enforceability, even well-intentioned legislation risks failure.
The Attorney General cites John Donne’s Meditation XVII to argue that no nation exists in isolation. This observation reinforces the reality that foreign influence cannot be eliminated.
The challenge lies in defining harmful foreign influence in a way that serves the public interest while respecting constitutional freedoms.
Foreign influence remains a key driver of globalisation, connecting economies, cultures, and societies. While it can challenge state autonomy, it is not easily regulated.
The current Bill makes that task even more difficult.
In the meantime, greater attention may be needed to address domestic challenges such as maladministration, corruption, and structural economic inequalities, which arguably pose a more immediate threat to national sovereignty.
*Adiro Rachel Peace and Maria Faith Aliba from Muwema & Company Advocates helped in the research for this article.
