The Global Network of Domestic Election Monitors (GNDEM) has been following efforts to restrict citizen election observers from supporting transparent and accountable political processes, including through the manipulation of the legal framework. This includes, most recently, Uganda’s proposed Protection of Sovereignty Bill which would eliminate, silence, and bring under state control a wide range of civil society and community-based organizations that provide critical services to the people of Uganda, monitor and safeguard core democratic processes, and help citizens hold the government to account. In practice, it would repress and curtail activities that challenge the authority of the governing regime – such as promoting credible and participatory elections, human rights protections, and access to information.

By virtue of its sweeping scope and application, the Bill contravenes provisions in the Constitution of Uganda (1995, rev. 2017) that guarantee autonomy to civic organizations (Part II(v)) and the independence of non-governmental organizations that protect human rights (Part V(ii)); protect freedoms of expression, association and right of access to information (Sections 29(1)(a), (e), and 41, respectively); protect the civic rights of Ugandan citizens (Section 38); and prohibit any limitation on the enjoyment of constitutional rights and freedoms “beyond what is acceptable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society” (Section 43(2)(c)). The Bill also contravenes Uganda’s regional and international law obligations, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (freedom of association (Article 10), freedom of expression (Article 9), the right to participate in public affairs (Article 13), and prohibiting discrimination (Article 2)); the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (Articles 19, 21, 22, 25 and 26), and others.

The Bill is neither narrowly tailored to address a legitimate government interest, nor balanced by due process guarantees and independent oversight mechanisms that could help ensure transparency in implementation and mitigate against potential abuses. Ironically, though the Bill purports to protect Ugandan sovereignty, its content mirrors similar “foreign agent” laws from foreign states whose governments are categorized as closed autocracies or electoral autocracies by multiple global democracy indices. Key similarities can be found in laws from Russia (2012), Hungary (2023), Georgia and Kyrgyzstan (2024), and Zimbabwe  (2025), and in bills proposed in the Central African Republic (2024), Ethiopia (2025) and others.

Notably, many of these foreign laws have been held by courts and other multilateral bodies to violate the rights of freedom of assembly and association. The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedoms of Assembly and Association has stated that the ability to access foreign resources is an integral part of freedom of association. Accordingly, restrictions imposed under this Bill that would impede civil society from accessing foreign funds and prevent their functioning demonstrably violate this right.

The Bill also likely gives rise to conflict of laws issues with respect to frameworks governing foreign investment and external lending and borrowing, data privacy laws, labor and employment laws, the Diplomatic Privileges Act, and others and, in addition to closing the civic space, will have a chilling effect on Uganda’s economic development.

Key Challenges:

Vague and sweeping definitions

• Definitions of key terms, such as “agent of a foreigner”, “disruptive activities”, “foreigner”, and “person” are sweeping and vague. They encompass virtually any relationship or activity linking natural persons, registered companies and organizations, and informal associations in Uganda to any person or entity deemed to be ‘foreign’ – including Ugandan citizens residing outside Uganda. Dual citizenship is not required to be deemed “foreign” under the Bill; mere residence abroad is sufficient.
• There are also critical definitional gaps. Section 2 on the Application of the requires that a person is (a) acting as an agent of a foreigner and (b) engaging in activities “in the interests of a foreigner”. However, the Bill does not define what constitutes an act  “in the interests of a foreigner”. This is left entirely to the discretion of the enforcing authority.
• Relatedly, there is no legal definition of “the interests of Uganda” rooted in either constitutional law or international law governing state sovereignty and capacity. Accordingly, the Bill does not distinguish between the “interests of Uganda” with the interests of the Government of Uganda, raising serious concerns about selective implementation to silence those to disagree with government policy or actions.

Extensive administrative burdens, paired with a lack of procedural clarity

• The bill includes burdensome registration, disclosure and reporting requirements but without defined timelines, definitions, or timelines for appeals processes, and allows for ministries to develop more regulations for certification not yet specified or limited by law. This lack of clarity essentially allows the government to selectively determine compliance with limited transparency or opportunity for redress.
• Certificates can be revoked with no clear legal justification including being determined by the issuing authority as “no longer fit and proper to hold a certificate of registration” or “engages in disruptive activities” with out any detail on what those entail

Enables invasive and potentially arbitrary and discriminatory inspections

• The bill empowers government surveillance and inspection “at any reasonable time” without justification, court orders, or other clearances, substantially decreasing the basic privacy and safety of citizens.

Criminalizes a wide range of conduct and imposes draconian penalties

• Section 5(4) provides that any person who “promotes the interests of a foreign against the interest of Uganda” is subject upon conviction to hefty fines and up to 20 years imprisonment. Without definitions of foreign and Ugandan interests, the application of such penalties could be entirely arbitrary or patently discriminatory. There is no requirement, for example, that such actions constitute an act of Treason, Terrorism or other crime defined in the penal code.

Misrepresents the purpose of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution and the nature of “government policy”, leading to extensive discretion in determining prohibited conduct and deterring basic civic advocacy

The provisions are legally nonsensical and could only be used to curtail public participation in policy making processes and criticism of government policy positions. Civic-government collaboration and partnership is the backbone of a healthy democracy and foundational for enabling citizens to collaborate on public policies, obtain and provide feedback to improve services, and build trust in public institutions.

Section 6 purports to bar any “person or agent of a foreigner” from performing the services for which the Government is responsible under the Sixth Schedule. Yet the government has put forward no verifiable evidence that persons or “agents” within Uganda are usurping the Government’s enumerated powers under this provision. Further, any finding that such an organization is doing so in a manner that intends, or causes, harm to the nation would likely constitute an offense under the penal code – such as for treason or terrorism, making such provisions in this Bill redundant and reducing due process protections.

Similarly, Sections 7 and 8 purport to prohibit any “person or agent of a foreigner” from developing a policy without Cabinet approval and from implementing government policies without permission. The Bill makes doing so a criminal offense liable upon conviction to payment of a hefty fine and up to twenty years in prison. By definition, a government policy is developed and adopted by the government. Any document not endorsed by the Government lacks such status. These provisions suggest that even proposing or advocating for policy reforms – including electoral reform – could be considered a criminal offense.

🔗 Original statement is available on the website of GNDEM.