Katikamu County North Member of Parliament Dennis Ssekabira has sharply criticized the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM), describing it as "weak" and increasingly unable to pass legislation without significant resistance.
Speaking during Sanyuka Morning Xpress on Monday, Ssekabira argued that the ruling party lacks genuine grassroots support, which he said is evident in the growing opposition to its legislative agenda.
"The National Resistance Movement is weak and lacks real support. Every time it wants to pass a bill, there is resistance," he said, suggesting that public trust in the party has eroded.
Ssekabira further framed Uganda's political landscape as a choice between resistance and compromise.
Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn
"In this world, you either choose to remain in defiance until you achieve freedom, or you decide to compromise," he said, signaling a broader ideological stance aligned with opposition politics.
Ssekabira's remarks come amid growing national debate surrounding the Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2025, a comprehensive legislative proposal designed to regulate foreign influence and affirm Uganda's autonomy across multiple sectors. The bill has generated significant attention both within political circles and among civil society organizations.
Supporters of the legislation, particularly members of the NRM Parliamentary Caucus, argue that it is a critical step toward protecting state institutions and ensuring that national decision-making processes remain free from undue external interference. The bill is expected to establish stricter oversight mechanisms on foreign financial inflows into the country.
Emerging details from early drafts indicate that the proposed law would require organizations and institutions operating in Uganda to disclose all foreign funding within 14 days of receipt.
Additionally, it seeks to grant the Minister of Internal Affairs expanded authority to monitor, regulate, or even limit foreign financial participation in activities deemed potentially harmful to national interests.
The NRM Parliamentary Caucus has already formally adopted the government's proposal to table what is now also referred to as the National Sovereignty Bill, 2026.
The legislation is intended to operationalize Article 1, Sub-Article 1 of the Constitution of Uganda, which affirms that all power belongs to the people and must be exercised in accordance with their sovereign will.
Government Chief Whip Hamson Obua, speaking at a press briefing following a caucus meeting at State House Entebbe on Friday, defended the bill as both necessary and consistent with international practice.
He noted that similar laws exist in other countries, including former colonial powers, and argued that Uganda is simply aligning itself with established global standards.
"We were colonized by the British; the UK had similar legislation. So, we are not reinventing the wheel. The proposed bill seeks to regulate foreign financial inflows--those inflows coming into Uganda must be for legitimate reasons and not harmful reasons," he said.
Obua further stressed that the government's objective is to secure Uganda's sovereignty fully through legal means.
"We want sovereignty 100% and we want to secure that through this law," he said, describing the bill as a fulfillment of constitutional principles.
However, the proposed legislation has not been without criticism. Opponents, including civil society actors, argue that the bill closely mirrors earlier attempts to regulate non-governmental organizations (NGOs), particularly regarding foreign funding.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Critics contend that while the terminology has evolved, the core objectives remain unchanged tightening control over NGOs and expanding ministerial powers.
Civil society analysts observe that both the previous NGO regulatory initiatives and the current bill share key features, including mandatory disclosure of foreign funding within a strict timeframe and increased oversight by the Ministry of Internal Affairs. This has raised concerns about the potential impact on civic space and organizational independence.
Observers also note that the overlap in language and intent between past and present proposals has fueled debate over whether the bill represents a genuinely new policy direction or a continuation of existing regulatory ambitions under a different name.
