A group of 14 human rights activists, politicians, journalists and civil society actors has petitioned the Constitutional Court seeking to nullify the recently enacted Protection of Sovereignty Act, arguing that it violates several constitutional rights and freedoms guaranteed to Ugandans.
The petitioners contend that the law, which was fast-tracked through Parliament and assented to by President Museveni, is unconstitutional because it restricts freedom of expression, association, assembly and participation in governance, among other rights.
The petitioners include former Leader of the Opposition in Parliament Winnie Kiiza, Mityana Municipality MP Francis Zaake, Achilla Gift Grace, Kuku Amos, Nabawanuka Elizabeth, Yub Denis, Namara Claire, journalist Arnold Anthony Mukose, Tumuhimbiise Norman, Esomu Simon Peter, Mukiibi Jeremiah, Luwedde Lillian, Bikobere Faridah and Nabukeera Teddy Teangel.
According to court documents, the Protection of Sovereignty Act, No. 7 of 2026, was gazetted as Bill No. 13 of 2026, tabled before Parliament on April 15, passed on May 5, assented to by the President on May 17, and came into force on May 22.
The petitioners argue that the law unlawfully equates criticism of government policy with disloyalty to the country by defining the ‘interest of a foreigner’ as interests not aligned with government policy and the ‘interests of Uganda’ by reference to government policy.
They contend that such provisions subordinate the sovereignty of the people to the Executive, contrary to Articles 1, 2 and 8A of the Constitution, which vest sovereign power in the people and establish the Constitution as the supreme law of the land.
‘The impugned Act criminalises the promotion of interests defined solely by reference to government policy and thereby treats lawful disagreement with the government of the day as disloyalty to the nation,’ the petitioners state.
The applicants further challenge Sections 5, 10, 12, 13 and 2(2)(f) of the Act, arguing that they are couched in vague and ambiguous language, including terms such as ‘interests of Uganda’, ‘disruptive activities’, ‘economic sabotage’ and ‘ideologies inconsistent with the Constitution or which conflict with any culture, customs or norms.’
According to the petitioners, such provisions fail to provide citizens with clear notice of prohibited conduct and grant excessive discretion to prosecutors and the minister responsible for implementing the law.
They argue that this contravenes Article 28(12) of the Constitution, which requires criminal offences and penalties to be clearly defined in law.
The petitioners also challenge what they describe as speech-based offences under Sections 5, 10 and 13, arguing that they criminalise criticism of government policy and suppress the free exchange of ideas.
They contend that the provisions violate Article 29 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech, expression, publication and access to information.
The petition further attacks provisions requiring individuals deemed to be acting as ‘agents of foreigners’ to obtain ministerial certification before carrying out certain activities.
The petitioners argue that the licensing regime and restrictions on access to foreign funding imposed under Parts III and IV of the Act amount to an unconstitutional restraint on freedom of association.
They also contend that Sections 10 and 12 unlawfully criminalise meetings and public functions organised with foreign assistance, thereby infringing the constitutional right to peaceful assembly.
Regarding political participation, the petitioners argue that several provisions criminalise efforts to influence government policy, mobilise public opinion or shape political outcomes.
‘These provisions strike at the heart of democratic political activity and are inconsistent with Articles 38 and 1(4) of the Constitution, which guarantee citizens the right to participate in the affairs of government,’ the petition states.
The applicants further challenge provisions that grant extensive powers to the minister, including powers to issue licences, impose conditions, conduct inspections and suspend or revoke approvals based on broad grounds such as perceived security threats.
According to the petitioners, such powers undermine the separation of powers doctrine and improperly transfer legislative authority from Parliament to the Executive.
They also argue that the law’s disclosure, reporting and inspection requirements violate the constitutional right to privacy by permitting excessive intrusion into personal affairs, property and correspondence.
The petitioners further contend that the Act discriminates against individuals and organisations receiving lawful foreign support by subjecting them to registration, surveillance and potential criminal sanctions solely because of the source of their funding.
They argue that this violates the constitutional guarantees of equality and freedom from discrimination.
The petitioners are now seeking declarations that the contested provisions are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction restraining the Attorney General, who is the sole respondent, and other government agencies from enforcing or implementing the Act pending determination of the petition.
The Attorney General had not yet filed a response to the petition by press time Wednesday evening.