Uganda’s new foreign financing law further narrows the opposition’s chances
The law criminalising foreign political funding would only be justifiable if the country had a stronger democratic record.
Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni this month signed into law a contentious measure that will criminalise Ugandans for receiving foreign funding for political purposes in excess of a restricted amount and without the government’s authority.
Museveni has been in power for 40 years, and in January was elected for another five years in elections widely assessed as not free and fair. The Uganda Law Society expressed ‘grave concern over the conduct of the electoral process,’ saying ‘the suppression of fundamental freedoms, including the rights to liberty, assembly, expression and political participation, significantly compromised the integrity of the electoral environment.’
Yet Museveni still apparently feels insecure enough in power to enact legislation restricting anyone outside Uganda from providing financing to political parties or non-governmental organisations (NGOs) engaging in activities that could influence public policy.
Like many other authoritarian leaders, the 81-year-old Museveni, who seized power in 1986, has long objected to outside influence in Uganda, accusing domestic political rivals of receiving funding from abroad.
So he signed the Protection of Sovereignty Act 2026 into law, which, in its original form, essentially outlawed any foreign funding of activity in Uganda that put foreign interests before Ugandan interests. It criminalised as ‘foreign agents’ those in Uganda who receive such funds without declaring them to, or registering with, the government. The penalty was up to 20 years’ imprisonment and/or fines of up to about US$1 million.
Museveni has long objected to outside influence, accusing domestic political rivals of receiving funding from abroad
The bill was widely criticised. According to Reuters, the World Bank told the government it could stem even legitimate economic and development funding, potentially criminalising much of its ‘routine development activities’ – including organising meetings that discussed alternative policy ideas.
Even Uganda’s central bank governor, Michael Atingi-Ego, said the bill would threaten the foreign inflows underpinning Uganda’s balance of payments and foreign exchange reserves.
Then, rather bizarrely, Museveni himself criticised the bill, posting on X that: ‘The Bill will stop FDIs (Foreign Direct Investments), support for religious bodies from abroad, Remittances from Ugandans working abroad, etc., etc. Really!! That is not the Bill I initiated.’
‘As usual, it’s unclear whether this was a tried-and-tested strategy of him floating an idea and seeing how it lands; or whether it indeed had genuinely been drafted more extreme than he had intended,’ Kristof Titeca, Senior Associate Fellow at Egmont Institute’s Africa Programme told ISS Today.
Parliament subsequently amended the bill, apparently diluting some of its harsher provisions. David Lewis Rubongoya, Secretary-General of Uganda’s main opposition party, the National Unity Platform (NUP) led by the engaging Bobi Wine, told ISS Today that Parliament had not officially released the final enacted law.
He said a leaked version seemed to soften aspects of it. For example, the original bill defined ‘foreigners’ to include Ugandans living abroad, which would have stripped Ugandans of their citizenship and criminalised remittances from the diaspora, among others.
Museveni still feels insecure enough to enact legislation restricting foreign financing to political parties or NGOs
The supposedly final version defines foreigners only as non-Ugandans, narrows the scope of forbidden foreign funding explicitly to financing political activities in Uganda, and reduces the maximum prison term from 20 years to 10. Nevertheless, there are still concerns that the law remains a blunt instrument which the government could use against anyone it disagrees with.
‘My understanding is that the bill was toned back so not every person receiving money from abroad needs to register/report to the government – only those receiving it for “political” purposes, whatever that means,’ said Human Rights Watch (HRW) Uganda Researcher Oryem Nyeko.
‘I think they changed the foreigner definition too. I think the idea was to address the concerns about remittances and the economic impact of blocking any foreign money coming into Uganda raised by Bank of Uganda and others. But the essence of what made it risky for opposition, critics, civil society etc. is still there.’
In an earlier statement, HRW said the bill threatened fundamental rights and could be used to shut down civil society. ‘The bill emulates laws adopted in recent years by other rights-abusing governments, which have been deemed to violate international law.’
HRW described the bill as part of a broader campaign by Uganda’s government to ‘clamp down on free expression and peaceful assembly, that has included arresting and bringing criminal charges against political opponents and their supporters, [and] other critics of government officials.’
It is unclear what Atingi-Ego or the World Bank think of the amendments. But ‘it’s still a bad law,’ said Rubongoya, as it remained ‘an oppressive tool trying to clamp down on NGOs and opposition parties.’
Receiving money from abroad has helped Uganda’s opposition parties counter the ruling party’s huge advantages
Wine told ISS Today that ‘everyone is against it, civil society professionals, even the central bank governor. But they passed it anyway. It’s disastrous. It intends to target opposition leaders, particularly myself – and I believe many in the future – from being funded from outside the country.’
It is easy for governments like Museveni’s to mobilise opposition to foreign funding of political parties and activities. On the face of it, such funding seems to infringe on a country’s sovereignty, and so most forbid it.
But there are differences. South Africa’s Political Party Funding Act, for example, forbids political parties from receiving funding from foreign governments and any foreign entities – except funds for training of their public representatives and for policy development (up to limits).
The most important difference, though, is that South African opposition parties operate on a generally level playing field. In Uganda and other authoritarian states, the incumbent party and president enjoy a tremendous advantage from controlling and abusing state resources. In this case, the government disperses funds to opposition parties as required by law – but for over a year, Wine’s NUP has received none.
To receive the funding, Rubongoya said, the party had to join the Interparty Organisation for Dialogue – which it refused to do. The NUP believed Museveni’s government had created this body to co-opt opposition parties and lend legitimacy to the regime. Receiving money from abroad has helped opposition parties, especially the NUP, counter the huge advantages of incumbency that the ruling party enjoys.
For permission to re-publish ISS Today articles, please email us. In South Africa, News24 has exclusive rights to republish ISS Today articles. In Nigeria, Premium Times has exclusive rights to republish ISS Today articles.
