The Justice Forum has joined the rest of Uganda’s opposition political formations and civil societies to call for Parliament’s withdrawal of the proposed Protection of Sovereignty Bill 2026.
According to Swaibu Kaggwa Nsereko, JEEMA party spokesperson, the Constitution provides the answer in this situation because it indicates that all able-bodied citizens must undergo military training whenever called upon to defend the Constitution and Uganda’s territorial integrity, adding that the state should provide facilities for it.
“Replace the sovereignty bill with a national civic defense program, disaster response, and defense skills. Include the diaspora through embassies instead of criminalizing them. Ensure parliamentary oversight to prevent abuse, because this is the only way we shall adequately promote true sovereignty,” Nsereko said.
According to the party statement released on Thursday, April 23rd, 2026, true sovereignty means a prepared citizenry, not a policed citizenry.
“For over 30 years, Article 17(2) has been deliberately redundant. The government has refused to train citizens to defend the Constitution, yet it punishes them. If there’s genuine fear of external money, then they should build citizens so grounded in constitutional values that their loyalty cannot be bought,” the statement read in part.
Nsereko allegedly stated that the Protection of Sovereignty bill does not protect Uganda’s sovereignty but instead threatens civil liberties, yet real sovereignty is not built by policing citizens but by preparing them.
“Therefore, the party calls upon legislators to withdraw the proposed protection of sovereignty bill and instead enact legislation to operationalize article 17(2) of the 1995 Constitution in this current state,” he noted.
Meanwhile, Uganda has been overwhelmingly critical, with lawyers, civil society, and local leaders denouncing the proposed Protection of Sovereignty Bill 2026 as a threat to constitutional rights and economic stability. While the government argues the bill is necessary to prevent foreign interference in domestic policies, most public feedback has focused on its potential to stifle dissent and disrupt essential services.
