A coalition of political leaders, lawyers, journalists, activists, and civil society actors has petitioned the Constitutional Court seeking to overturn the newly enacted Protection of Sovereignty Act, 2026, arguing that the law threatens constitutional freedoms, expands executive power, and criminalises legitimate civic activity.
The petition, filed before the Constitutional Court in Kampala through the Judiciary’s Electronic Court Case Information Management System (ECCMIS), lists 14 applicants drawn from politics, the legal fraternity, media, and human rights advocacy.
Among the petitioners are former Leader of Opposition Winnie Kiiza, Mityana Municipality MP Francis Zaake, lawyer and civil society leader Gift Grace Achilla, Advocate Amos Kuku, lawyer Elizabeth Nabawanuka, activist Claire Namara, journalist and human rights defender Arnold Anthony Mukose, community organiser Norman Tumuhimbise, human rights advocate Simon Peter Esomu, and media practitioners Jeremiah Mukiibi, Lilian Luwedde, Faridah Bikobere, and Teddy Teangel Nabukeera.
The Attorney General has been named as the respondent.
In their application, the petitioners challenge both the process through which the law was enacted and the substance of several of its provisions. The Act was passed by Parliament on May 5, assented to by the President on May 17, and became operational on May 22, 2026.
According to the court filing, the Protection of Sovereignty Act establishes a far-reaching legal framework regulating civic engagement, political activity, advocacy, foreign funding, and operations of organisations perceived to have foreign influence.
The applicants contend that several sections of the law are unconstitutional because they introduce vague and overly broad offences capable of criminalising lawful criticism, dissent, and public participation in governance.
Among the contested provisions are clauses criminalising actions described as promoting “foreign interests,” interfering with government operations, influencing public opinion against state policy, and engaging in “economic sabotage.” The petitioners argue that the definitions attached to terms such as “interests of Uganda,” “disruptive activities,” and “political activities” are ambiguous and open to abuse.
They maintain that such wording gives authorities excessive discretion to interpret ordinary civic engagement as criminal conduct, contrary to constitutional principles requiring offences to be clearly defined in law.
The petition also challenges provisions compelling individuals and organisations receiving foreign funding to register as “agents of foreigners.” The applicants argue that this effectively creates a licensing regime for civil society organisations and grants sweeping powers to the Minister responsible for Internal Affairs to approve, suspend, or revoke operational certificates.
According to the petitioners, the law imposes harsh penalties intended to discourage political participation and free expression. They cite penalties of up to Shs2 billion for organisations and Shs1 billion or imprisonment of up to 10 years for individuals accused of violating the Act.
The applicants further object to provisions permitting inspections, surveillance, disclosure of information, and forfeiture of funds, saying the measures infringe on privacy rights and due process safeguards guaranteed under the Constitution.
Court documents indicate that the petition seeks declarations nullifying several sections of the Act, including Sections 1, 2(2), 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 to 20, 21, 22, 23, and 28, which the applicants argue are inconsistent with the Constitution.
The petitioners are also asking court to strike down the Schedule fixing the value of a currency point at Shs20,000, arguing that it facilitates excessive financial penalties under the law.
Legally, the challenge targets major parts of the legislation, including provisions creating criminal offences, establishing registration requirements for “agents of foreigners,” regulating foreign funding, and granting inspection and enforcement powers to state authorities.
The applicants argue that the law violates multiple constitutional protections, including the sovereignty of the people, supremacy of the Constitution, freedom of expression, association, assembly, privacy, and participation in governance.
They further contend that the Act grants excessive powers to the Minister responsible for Internal Affairs, including authority to license, inspect, suspend, and revoke permits based on broadly defined grounds such as “security threats,” which they say undermines principles of fairness and separation of powers.
Through their lawyers from Kiiza and Mugisha Company Advocates led by Eron Kiiza, the petitioners argue that sovereignty belongs to the people of Uganda and that the law threatens organisations and activities that contribute to the country’s economic and democratic development.
The legal team also argues that the manner in which the law was processed and enacted violated constitutional standards.
Several of the applicants have previously been involved in successful constitutional litigation against government legislation and policies. A number of them recently participated in a court challenge that led to the nullification of some provisions of the Computer Misuse Act.
The Constitutional Court has not yet fixed the petition for hearing, but the applicants are seeking interim orders stopping enforcement of the law pending final determination of the case.
They are also asking court to order that each party bears its own legal costs, citing the public interest nature of the constitutional challenge.
English 