Uganda’s proposed Protection of Sovereignty Bill arrives at a moment when the country is grappling with a fundamental question: how to protect national interests without undermining the very freedoms that sustain its society. On the surface, the bill addresses a legitimate concern. Governments everywhere are increasingly wary of foreign influence, particularly in politics, civil society, and public discourse. Uganda is no exception. In an age of global funding, cross-border advocacy, and digital mobilisation, ensuring transparency in how external actors operate is both reasonable and necessary. In that sense, the bill’s intention to safeguard sovereignty and bring clarity to foreign-linked activities is not without merit. But laws are judged not only by their intent, but by their reach. And here, the proposed legislation raises serious concerns. Its definition of a “foreigner” is so broad that it risks capturing ordinary Ugandans, those working with international organisations, living abroad, or simply receiving support from outside the country. By extension, it creates a system where citizens could be required to seek government approval before engaging in activities as fundamental as advocacy, policy discussion, or even civic mobilisation. That is where the danger lies. When participation in public life becomes conditional on state approval, the line between regulation and restriction begins to blur. Civil society organisations may hesitate to operate. Journalists and activists may self-censor. Even diaspora communities, whose remittances sustain countless households, could find themselves navigating uncertainty. The consequences are not abstract. They touch on livelihoods, public debate, and the flow of ideas that drive a functioning democracy. The bill’s punitive provisions deepen that concern. With penalties reaching billions of shillings and prison terms of up to 20 years, the risk is not just compliance; it is fear. And fear, in a civic space, often leads to silence. Yet, it would be unfair to dismiss the proposal entirely. The call for transparency in foreign funding is valid. Uganda has a right to understand who is influencing its policies and institutions. A well- crafted law could strengthen accountability, build public trust, and protect national interests without closing civic space. The challenge, then, is balance. A more pragmatic approach would narrow the bill’s definitions, clearly distinguishing between harmful foreign interference and legitimate international engagement. Oversight mechanisms should be independent, transparent, and subject to judicial review, not concentrated solely within executive structures. Most importantly, the law must explicitly safeguard constitutional freedoms, ensuring that regulation does not become repression. Uganda’s strength has always been its people, their enterprise, their connections, and their voice. Any law that governs external influence must protect those strengths, not constrain them. As Parliament prepares to debate this bill, the goal should not be control for its own sake, but confidence: a system that secures sovereignty while preserving the openness that allows a society to grow. The post Rethink this law: Protect sovereignty without harassing Ugandans appeared first on The Observer.