The Kingdom of Buganda has warned the Attorney General that the Draft Protection of Sovereignty Bill 2026 will unintentionally affect cultural institutions, legitimate development partnerships and civic participation in Uganda.
The submission, received on 28 April 2026 through the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs Security Registry, urges government and Parliament to carefully reconsider key clauses of the proposed legislation before it proceeds to its next stages.
Buganda emphasized that its engagement is grounded in its constitutional mandate and is not intended as political opposition.
“I write to respectfully submit the Kingdom of Buganda’s detailed concerns, observations and recommendations on the Draft Protection of Sovereignty Bill 2026 for your urgent consideration, before the Bill proceeds to its further stages in Parliament,” the Kingdom stated.
The Kingdom further clarified its position, stressing its continued partnership with Government in national development efforts.
“These submissions are not partisan politics in nature and are not made in opposition to the Government of the Republic of Uganda. On the contrary, the Kingdom of Buganda regards itself as a partner of the government in national development,”the letter reads.
At the centre of Buganda’s concerns is the proposed definition of foreigner and agent of a foreigner which the Kingdom argues is too broad and could wrongly capture Ugandan citizens in the diaspora as well as constitutionally recognised cultural institutions that engage with international partners.
The Kingdom observed that citizenship should be determined by law and not by place of residence, warning that Ugandans living abroad remain citizens regardless of where they reside. It further noted that millions of Ugandans in the diaspora maintain strong cultural, familial, and economic ties with Uganda and contribute significantly to development initiatives.
Buganda also warned that its own programmes, many of which receive support from international development partners and Ugandans abroad, could be misclassified under the proposed law. It cited cultural and community initiatives that rely on voluntary contributions, including fundraising events and development programmes across sectors such as health, education, agriculture, and cultural heritage.
“To label such contributions as ‘foreign funding’ and to designate family members back home as agents of foreigners is a profound injustice,” the Kingdom stated.
Buganda Kingdom urged that cultural institutions be explicitly exempted from such classifications.
The Kingdom recommended that the Bill should clearly distinguish between foreign political interference and legitimate cultural or civic engagement, warning that the current wording risks exposing lawful advocacy to criminal liability.
It further expressed concern that Clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill could restrict cultural institutions from engaging in public discourse on matters of governance and development, particularly where such engagement is supported by external partners.
Buganda noted that it has historically engaged government on issues such as land rights, education, health, agriculture, and cultural preservation, which it considers part of its constitutional role.
Attention was also drawn to Clause 13 on economic sabotage, which the Kingdom described as overly broad and lacking clear legal thresholds. It warned that the provision could be used to criminalise legitimate expression of opinion or policy criticism.
A Kingdom official, it noted, could be exposed to prosecution simply for raising concerns about the impact of a government project on local communities, even where such concerns are made in good faith. Buganda therefore called for a clearer definition that limits the offence to deliberate acts undertaken with proven intent to destabilise the economy in furtherance of foreign interests.
The submission also raised concern over the severity of penalties under the Bill, describing them as excessively harsh and potentially inconsistent with constitutional guarantees of freedom of expression and participation in public affairs.
Particular concern was expressed over Clause 22, which sets a threshold of Ugx 400 million for disclosure of foreign funding. Buganda argued that this threshold is unrealistic for cultural institutions and community development programmes that depend on periodic external support.
The Kingdom warned that provisions allowing for heavy fines, imprisonment, and forfeiture of funds could negatively affect social development programmes, particularly those aimed at improving livelihoods in health, education, and cultural preservation.
Buganda further urged Government to exempt constitutionally recognised traditional institutions and their affiliated entities from registration and reporting requirements under the Bill, arguing that such obligations would create administrative burdens that could hinder their operations.
The Kingdom called for a balanced approach that safeguards Uganda’s sovereignty while preserving the constitutional role of cultural institutions in national development.
It urged Parliament to carefully refine the Bill to ensure it strengthens national interests without unintentionally restricting legitimate cultural, civic, and developmental activities.
