By Fred Muwema
The title, “Regulating Foreign Influence Without Stifling Growth,” which captioned the article of the learned Attorney General, published in the New Vision newspaper on 21st April 2026, correctly captures the assumed legislative intent of the Ugandan Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026.
The article does better than the explanatory memorandum of the Bill by acknowledging that foreign influence is inevitable, adding that it cuts both ways and can be either beneficial or harmful.
Unfortunately, the strength of the article is undermined by the fact that the Bill is overly broad in its configuration. Even if it had defined foreign influence—which it does not—it would still be difficult to distinguish between the good, the bad, and the undesirable. This familiar pattern in our lawmaking process is not surprising, as we are once again confronted with a Government Bill marked by obliqueness and inconsistency.
Due to its latent vagueness, one can argue that the Bill has already succumbed to the very mischief of foreign influence it seeks to prevent. Its mosaic plagiarism of key aspects from a foreign law suggests that it may itself be under the direction or influence of external legal frameworks in shaping government policy.
A careful scrutiny of the Bill reveals that the fundamental definition of an “agent of a foreigner” was copied from the Georgian Foreign Agent Registration Act, 2025. That law defines an “agent of a foreign principal” as:
“A person acting as an agent, representative, employee or servant of a foreign principal, or any other person acting at the direction, request, instruction or control of a foreign principal, and whose activities are wholly or substantially supervised, managed, controlled, financed or subsidized by the foreign principal, directly or indirectly…”
In Clause 1 of the Ugandan Bill, an “agent of a foreigner”—essentially the same nomenclature—is defined as:
“A person who acts as an agent, representative, employee, or servant of a foreigner, or any person who acts in any other capacity at the order, request, or under the direction or control of a foreigner or of a person, any of whose activities are directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed, or subsidised by a foreigner.”
From this comparison, it is evident that the Ugandan Bill adopts near-identical phrasing, structure, and language from the Georgian law, with only minor semantic adjustments such as replacing “principal” with “foreigner.” These alterations do little to disguise the replication, rendering any omissions or rearrangements insignificant.
Furthermore, the requirements for registration of an agent of a foreigner in Uganda—including details of the applicant, status, and income received in the past 60 days—mirror those of the Georgian law in language, structure, and sequence.
Plagiarism of any kind is unacceptable. In legislative drafting, it undermines legal authenticity and integrity. While drafting may involve adopting “common pool language” from model laws, directly copying unique drafting without attribution is problematic. Although the Bill cross-references the Constitution, the Anti-Money Laundering Act (Cap 118), the Diplomatic Privileges Act (Cap 185), and the Public Finance Management Act (Cap 171), it fails to acknowledge the Georgian Foreign Agent Registration Act.
In effect, the Bill has become the first “agent of a foreigner” it seeks to proscribe. If enacted in its current form, its authors—being natural persons—could themselves fall within its scope for influencing government policy under foreign-derived provisions. Notably, the Bill’s definition of a person includes natural persons and does not exempt its drafters.
We therefore disagree with the learned Attorney General’s assertion that the scope of the Bill is clearly defined. In our view, the Bill is open to multiple interpretations, reflecting deep conceptual ambiguity. It lacks the three cardinal principles of legislative drafting: clarity, conciseness, and coherence.
Even if the Bill had adopted more progressive elements of the Georgian law—such as exemptions for private, non-political activities aimed at legitimate trade—it would still be entangled in the web of foreign influence. Experience across jurisdictions shows that foreign agent laws often have a chilling effect on civic rights. The more acceptable versions are anchored in transparency, accountability, and enforceable safeguards—elements that are largely absent in the Ugandan Bill.
Globally, similar legislation has faced resistance. The Czech Republic’s Foreign Agents Bill, tabled in March 2026, encountered strong public criticism and was subsequently shelved. Uganda’s Bill has also generated significant public debate, attracting over 47,000 largely negative comments across major social media platforms, including Facebook, X, and TikTok.
The Georgian law itself faced widespread protests upon its initial introduction in 2023, leading to its withdrawal before reintroduction and enactment in 2025. However, the Venice Commission—the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional matters—later concluded that the law failed to meet standards of legality, legitimacy, and necessity in a democratic society, recommending its repeal.
Similarly, Canada’s Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act, assented to in June 2024, had not been implemented by early 2026 due to various challenges. If a developed country with strong institutional frameworks is struggling with enforcement, it raises legitimate concerns about implementation in a developing context.
There is little doubt that the Bill has been rushed, creating avoidable challenges. Borrowing from Albert Einstein’s insight, problems cannot be solved with the same thinking that created them. A broader stakeholder consultation is therefore necessary to develop legislation that aligns with Uganda’s specific legal, social, and constitutional context.
A law is only as effective as its implementation. Without practical enforceability, it remains theoretical. For a law to succeed, it must resonate with the lived realities and needs of society.
The Attorney General’s reference to John Donne’s “Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions – Meditation XVII”—that no nation is an island—underscores the inevitability of foreign influence. The key legal challenge lies in defining and regulating harmful foreign influence without undermining legitimate global engagement.
Foreign influence is, in fact, a central driver of globalization, fostering interconnected economies, cultures, and societies while simultaneously challenging traditional state sovereignty. It is complex and difficult to regulate, and the current Bill arguably complicates this task further.
In the interim, greater attention may be better directed toward addressing more immediate threats to sovereignty, including public maladministration, corruption, and the structural imbalances of the global economic system. These issues arguably pose a more significant risk than the “agents of foreigners” the Bill seeks to regulate.
