Security has been visibly tightened around the precincts of the Parliament of Uganda in Kampala ahead of a highly anticipated plenary debate on the Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, a development that has stirred unease among lawmakers and observers over openness in the legislative process.
Early on Tuesday morning, joint deployments of the Uganda Police Force and the Uganda People’s Defence Forces took control of major roads leading to Parliament, setting up checkpoints and restricting movement into the parliamentary complex.
Access was reportedly limited to only accredited MPs, staff, and essential personnel, with journalists and members of the public facing delays or outright denial of entry.
The unusually heavy security presence, rare outside declared emergency situations, prompted immediate concern within political and civil society circles.
Some legislators compared the atmosphere to previous contentious parliamentary sittings, particularly the 2017 constitutional amendment debate that removed presidential age limits, which was similarly marked by intense security deployment and restricted access.
Inside Parliament, several Members of Parliament reported difficulty accessing chambers in time for scheduled sessions, further fueling claims that the environment was not conducive to open deliberation.
Mityana Municipality MP Francis Zaake criticized the situation, arguing that the level of force projected outside the legislature risked undermining democratic debate. He said the setting appeared more confrontational than deliberative, questioning the independence of the institution under such conditions.
Security authorities had not issued a detailed explanation for the operation by press time, although they have in past instances justified similar deployments as necessary to maintain order during sensitive legislative proceedings.
At the heart of the controversy is the Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026, which government officials argue is designed to shield Uganda’s national interests from external influence, particularly from foreign-funded organisations and actors perceived as interfering in domestic governance.
However, critics of the Bill warn that its wording is broad and could be interpreted in ways that restrict civic space and weaken constitutional freedoms.
Legal and governance analyst Job Kijja, affiliated with Innovations for Democratic Engagement and Action (IDEA), said concerns raised during public consultations were not adequately reflected in the current version of the Bill. He argued that the legislative process appeared predetermined, with limited incorporation of citizen input.
Civil society organisations have echoed similar concerns, cautioning that the proposed law could affect rights guaranteed under Uganda’s 1995 Constitution, particularly freedoms of expression, association, and assembly.
The developments have also drawn attention to political activity within the ruling party. Reports indicate that Members of Parliament from the National Resistance Movement (NRM) convened a caucus meeting ahead of the debate, a move analysts say is often used to align party positions on contentious legislation.
Executive Director of the Centre for Constitutional Governance (CCG), Sarah Bireete, noted that while party caucuses are a normal feature of parliamentary politics, their significance changes when combined with visible security pressure around the legislature.
She warned that such circumstances can raise questions about the extent of independence exercised by lawmakers during key votes.
As debate on the Bill looms, the fortified security environment around Parliament has become a focal point of national discussion, with stakeholders questioning whether the legislative process will proceed under conditions that fully guarantee open debate and institutional independence.
English 