Rights Activists, Politicians Challenge Sovereignty Law in Constitutional Court

By Skika Reporter.

A coalition of 14 human rights activists, politicians, journalists and civil society actors has petitioned the Constitutional Court seeking to strike down the recently enacted Protection of Sovereignty Act, arguing that it violates fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under Uganda’s Constitution.

The petitioners contend that the controversial law, which was fast-tracked through Parliament and assented to by President Yoweri Museveni last month, undermines freedom of expression, association, assembly and political participation while granting excessive powers to the Executive.

The petition was filed by former Leader of the Opposition Winnie Kiiza, Mityana Municipality MP Francis Zaake, journalist Arnold Anthony Mukose, and 11 other activists and civil society actors.

Challenge to the New Law

According to court documents, the Protection of Sovereignty Act, No. 7 of 2026, was introduced as Bill No. 13 of 2026 on April 15, passed by Parliament on May 5, assented to by the President on May 17, and came into force on May 22.

The petitioners argue that the Act unlawfully equates criticism of government policies with disloyalty to the nation by defining the “interest of a foreigner” as interests that are not aligned with government policy and linking the “interests of Uganda” directly to positions adopted by the government of the day.

They maintain that such provisions effectively subordinate the sovereignty of citizens to the Executive arm of government, contrary to Articles 1, 2 and 8A of the Constitution, which vest sovereign power in the people and establish constitutional supremacy.

“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 petition states.

Concerns Over Vague Provisions

The applicants are also challenging several sections of the law, including Sections 5, 10, 12, 13 and 2(2)(f), arguing that they contain vague and ambiguous terminology that could be interpreted arbitrarily.

Among the contested terms are “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, the wording fails to provide citizens with adequate notice of prohibited conduct and grants excessive discretion to law enforcement agencies and the responsible minister.

They argue that this violates Article 28(12) of the Constitution, which requires criminal offences and penalties to be clearly defined by law.

Freedom of Expression and Association

The petitioners further contend that the Act creates speech-related offences that criminalise criticism of government policy and suppress legitimate public debate.

They argue that provisions contained in Sections 5, 10 and 13 infringe Article 29 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech, expression, publication and access to information.

The court challenge also targets provisions requiring persons deemed to be acting as “agents of foreigners” to obtain ministerial certification before engaging in specified activities.

According to the petitioners, the licensing requirements and restrictions on foreign funding imposed under Parts III and IV of the Act amount to unconstitutional limitations on freedom of association.

They argue that individuals and organisations receiving lawful foreign support are unfairly subjected to registration requirements, monitoring and potential criminal penalties based solely on the source of their funding.

Assembly and Political Participation

The applicants also challenge provisions they say criminalise meetings and public gatherings organised with foreign assistance, arguing that they violate constitutional protections for peaceful assembly.

In addition, they maintain that several sections of the law undermine democratic participation by criminalising efforts to influence public policy, mobilise citizens or advocate for political change.

“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 petitioners argue that democratic engagement and advocacy should not be treated as criminal conduct simply because they receive foreign support or involve criticism of government policies.

Executive Powers Questioned

Another key issue raised in the petition concerns the extensive powers granted to the responsible minister under the Act.

The applicants challenge provisions that allow the minister to issue licences, impose conditions, conduct inspections and suspend or revoke approvals on broad grounds, including perceived threats to national security.

They argue that these powers violate the constitutional principle of separation of powers by effectively transferring legislative authority from Parliament to the Executive.

The petition also raises concerns over privacy, arguing that the Act’s disclosure, reporting and inspection requirements permit excessive intrusion into personal affairs, communications and property.

Petitioners Seek Court Intervention

The applicants are seeking declarations that the contested provisions are unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

They have also requested a permanent injunction restraining the Attorney General and all government agencies from enforcing or implementing the law until the Constitutional Court determines the petition.

The Attorney General, who is the sole respondent in the case, had not filed a response by Wednesday evening.

The case is expected to test the balance between national sovereignty, government regulation of foreign influence and the protection of constitutional freedoms in Uganda, potentially setting a significant legal precedent on the limits of state power and civil liberties.