Activists Petition Constitutional Court to Nullify Sovereignty Act

A group of 14 individuals, including political leaders, lawyers, journalists, activists, and civil society actors, has petitioned the Constitutional Court in Kampala, challenging the Protection of Sovereignty Act, 2026, arguing that it violates fundamental rights, entrenches executive overreach, and undermines constitutional democracy. 

 

The petitioners include former Leader of Opposition in Parliament Winnie Kiiza, Mityana Municipality Member of Parliament Francis Zaake, lawyer and civil society leader Gift Grace Achilla, Advocate Amos Kuku, lawyer Elizabeth Nabawanuka, human rights defender Yub Denis, activist Claire Namara, journalist and human rights defender Arnold Anthony Mukose, community organiser and activist Norman Tumuhimbise, lawyer and 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 the petition, which was filed before the Constitutional Court in Kampala through the Judiciary’s Electronic Court Case Information Management System (ECCMIS). The applicants are challenging the legality of the Act, which was passed by Parliament on May 5, 2026, assented to by the President on May 17, 2026, and came into force on May 22, 2026. 

 

According to court documents, the Protection of Sovereignty Act contains five parts and 30 sections and establishes what the petitioners describe as a broad regulatory and criminal framework governing civic activity, foreign funding, advocacy, and political participation.

The petitioners argue that the law introduces overly broad offences, including provisions that criminalise promoting what is defined as foreign interests, interfering with government operations, influencing public opinion against government policy, and engaging in what is termed “economic sabotage,” which includes the publication of information deemed false or disruptive to the economy. 

 

They further contend that key definitions in the Act, including “interests of Uganda,” “disruptive activities,” and “political activities,” are vague and tied to government policy, making lawful dissent and civic engagement potentially criminal in nature. The petition states that this lack of precision violates the constitutional requirement that offences must be clearly defined in written law.

The group also challenges provisions requiring individuals and organisations receiving foreign funding to register as “agents of foreigners,” arguing that the system creates a licensing regime for civic organisations and grants wide discretionary powers to the Minister responsible for Internal Affairs to approve, suspend, or revoke certificates.

 

 They contend that the Act, which they say was hurriedly passed by the 11th Parliament, imposes disproportionate penalties, including fines of up to Shs2 billion for organisations and Shs1 billion or imprisonment of up to 10 years for individuals. They argue that these penalties are excessive and intended to deter legitimate political participation, expression, and association.

The petition further argues that inspection, disclosure, and forfeiture provisions allow intrusive state oversight of private offices, correspondence, and financial operations, thereby violating the right to privacy and due process protections under the Constitution. In their arguments, the petitioners rely on constitutional provisions guaranteeing the sovereignty of the people, equality before the law, freedom of expression, association, assembly, and participation in governance. 

 

They contend that the Act subordinates citizens’ rights to executive discretion and undermines democratic accountability.

They also cite Uganda’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, arguing that the Act conflicts with regional and international human rights standards. 

 

The petition seeks declarations that several sections of the Act are unconstitutional and void, a permanent injunction restraining the government from enforcing the law, and, in the alternative, the severance of specific provisions. The petitioners are also asking the court to grant interim orders preserving constitutional freedoms pending the determination of the case and to direct that each party bears its own costs due to the public interest nature of the litigation.

Court records further show that the petitioners are seeking to nullify a wide range of provisions of the Protection of Sovereignty Act, 2026, targeting both entire parts of the law and specific sections they consider unconstitutional. They are seeking a declaration that Sections 1 (particularly the contested definitions), 2(2), 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 to 20, 21, 22, 23, and 28 of the Act are inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore null and void. They also want the Court to strike down the Schedule fixing the value of a currency point at Shs20,000, arguing that it facilitates the enforcement of excessive penalties under the law.

Legally, the petition challenges key structural components of the Act, including Part II, which creates criminal offences; Part III, which establishes the registration and licensing regime for “agents of foreigners”; Part IV, which regulates foreign funding and permits forfeiture of funds; and Part V, which provides for inspection and enforcement powers. On constitutional inconsistency, the petitioners argue that the impugned provisions violate several constitutional protections, including the sovereignty of the people under Article 1, the supremacy of the Constitution under Article 2, and fundamental rights and freedoms protected under Articles 20, 21, 27, 28, 29, 38, 40, 42, 43, 44, and 45.

They further argue that the law grants excessive discretionary powers to the Minister responsible for Internal Affairs to license, suspend, inspect, and revoke permits based on undefined criteria such as a “security threat,” contrary to principles of fair hearing and separation of powers.