law 10 June 2026 Daily Monitor (Uganda)
Rights Advocates Challenge Sovereignty Act in Court
A coalition of human rights activists, politicians, and journalists has lodged a legal challenge against Uganda's new Protection of Sovereignty Act, arguing it infringes upon fundamental freedoms and constitutional rights. The petitioners are seeking to have the law declared unconstitutional, citing restrictions on expression, association, and participation in governance. Source: https://www.monitor.co.ug/uganda/news/national/rights-activists-politicians-challenge-sovereignty-law-in-constitutional-court-5491870
Fourteen prominent human rights activists, politicians, and civil society representatives have taken their opposition to the Protection of Sovereignty Act to the Constitutional Court. They assert that the recently enacted law, which sailed through Parliament and was signed into law by President Museveni, fundamentally violates several constitutional rights guaranteed to Ugandans.
The core of their argument is that the Act illegitimately restricts freedoms of expression, association, assembly, and the right to participate in governance. The petitioners, a diverse group including former Opposition Leader Winnie Kiiza and MP Francis Zaake, contend that the law misconstrues criticism of government policy as disloyalty to the nation. They argue that by defining “interests of Uganda” solely through the lens of government policy, the Act elevates the Executive above the sovereign power of the people, as enshrined in the Constitution.
Key provisions of the Act, including sections dealing with “disruptive activities” and “economic sabotage,” are also under fire for their vagueness and ambiguity. Petitioners argue these broad terms fail to provide clear guidance on prohibited conduct, granting excessive discretionary power to state actors and potentially criminalizing lawful dissent. This, they claim, contravenes the constitutional requirement for clearly defined criminal offenses.
Furthermore, the petitioners challenge provisions that criminalize speech critical of government policy and limit access to foreign funding for certain activities. They view these as unconstitutional limitations on freedom of speech, association, and assembly, effectively stifling public discourse and democratic engagement. The lawsuit seeks declarations that the contested sections are unconstitutional and requests a permanent injunction against the Act’s enforcement.