By Fredrick ES Mutengeesa | Kampala | 2 May 2026
1. Introduction: A NATION AT A CONSTITUTIONAL CROSSWORDS
Uganda today stands at a delicate constitutional moment. The ongoing debates surrounding the Protection of Sovereignty Bill, 2026 have raised fundamental questions—not merely about the content of the Bill—but about the process, integrity, and constitutional fidelity of those entrusted with guiding it.
At the centre of this discourse is the office of the Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka, whose constitutional mandate is neither ceremonial nor passive. It is a sacred legal trust —to safeguard the Constitution, guide the Executive, and ensure that every legislative proposal meets the highest standards of legality, rationality, and public interest.
Yet, emerging developments suggest a troubling pattern: reactive amendments, rushed submissions, and apparent responsiveness only after public pressure. This raises a profound and legitimate question;
Is the Attorney General fully discharging his constitutional duty as the principal legal adviser to the State?
2. THE CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Under Article 119 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, the Attorney General is mandated to;
•Be the principal legal adviser to Government
•Ensure that all government actions are consistent with the Constitution
•Represent the State in legal matters
•Provide timely, sound, and independent legal guidance
These roles are further reinforced by principles of constitutionalism, rule of law, and public accountability which demand that Legal advice must be proactive, not reactive.
Therefore Legislative scrutiny must occur BEFORE, not after public backlash.
The Attorney General must act as a GUARDIAN OF PUBLIC INTEREST, not merely a defender of Executive preferences.
3. THE SOVEREIGNTY BILL: Substance, Timing and Process Concerns
Recent submissions to Parliament’s Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee reveal that the Attorney General’s office has introduced amendments narrowing the definition of “foreign agent ”—only after widespread criticism from stakeholders, including the Buganda Kingdom.
This sequence of events raises three critical concerns:
(a) Reactive Law-Making
If the initial draft contained constitutional risks—as stakeholders argued—why were these not identified at the drafting stage ?
A competent Attorney General must anticipate:
•Risks to freedom of association (Article 29)
•Threats to economic freedoms and investment stability
•Potential abuse of vague legal definitions
(b) Legislative Urgency vs. Constitutional Prudence
The speed at which amendments are being introduced suggests a sense of urgency that is not clearly justified.
Law-making is not an emergency exercise—it is a deliberate constitutional process
Rushed legislation risks:
•Producing ambiguous laws
•Undermining judicial interpretation
•Creating economic uncertainty
(c) Public Participation and Legitimacy
The Constitution (Article 38) guarantees citizens the right to participate in governance yet, when such amendments emerge only after pressure without initial exclusion, meaningful consultation they undermine public trust in legislative processes
4. THE RISK OF MISREPRESENTATION AND SPECIAL INTERESTS
There is growing concern that certain legislative initiatives may reflect narrow institutional or political interests and are being framed as national priorities without broad-based consensus. This creates a dangerous precedent where laws become tools of CONTROL rather than PROTECTION. Citizens end up feeling misrepresented and UNHEARD contrary to the Constitution which rests sovereign power in the people.
The Attorney General must therefore resist Political expediency, Institutional pressure, Personal or partisan influence and instead uphold:
The sovereignty of the Constitution over the convenience of power.
5. COMPARATIVE AND GUIDING LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Globally, the role of an Attorney General is anchored in;
- INDEPENDENCE OF LEGAL ADVICE (UK constitutional convention)
- Duty to the PUBLIC INTEREST above government
- Commitment to LEGALITY, rationality and PROPORTIONALITY
Key guiding instruments include;
•The Commonwealth Latimer House Principles (good governance and separation of powers)
•The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
•The UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers
These frameworks emphasise that:
The Attorney General must be a constitutional conscience and not merely a government technician.
6. A CALL FOR STRATEGIC RECALIBRATION
It is neither unreasonable nor disrespectful to call upon the Attorney General to:
(i) PAUSE AND RE-EVALUATE
Allow sufficient time for: •Comprehensive legal analysis.
•Stakeholder engagement
•Comparative legislative review.
(ii) STRENGTHEN DRAFTING PROCESSES
Ensure that future Bills are constitutionally compliant from inception, reflect multi-sectoral input and are subjected to rigorous internal scrutiny.
(iii) REASSERT INSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENCE
The Attorney General must Speak with CLARITY, AUTHORITY AND INDEPENDENCE and must advise the President with CANDOUR, not CONVENIENCE.
7. CONCLUSION : A HIGHER CALLING TO NATIONAL DUTY
Uganda does not merely need laws but JUST & fair laws, well-considered and constitutionally sound laws.
The office of the Attorney General is pivotal in this mission. It must rise above: Pressure, haste and narrow interests and instead embody;
•Wisdom
•Integrity
•Constitutional patriotism
“Twagale eggwanga lyaffe, twagale ensi yaffe” — Let us love our country not in words, but in principled action and lawful governance.
The enduring question remains:
Will the Attorney General stand as a defender of the Constitution—or a facilitator of expediency ?
The answer will shape not only this Bill— but the future of constitutional governance in Uganda.