@Dartte__45@mkbernz I was about to remind him of how he was a apart of a group of boys that hijacked the tv way back then to watch the last of Wenger’s wins 🤣
Belated regards kind sir
@BrendanAdWadri It is all a cycle! ‘Look the other way and I too, will do the same! Not sure many will survive the revelations coz one knows someone who knows someone that is involved. From those that lift holy hands to those that don’t give a damn!
So...
The President proposes his beautiful Bill.
Somehow, this “beautiful Bill” is hijacked by a Cabinet that sits every Monday at his official residence.
And these Cabinet meetings are chaired by the President, or his delegate.
Anyway…
Clauses
Not one, not two, not three, not four, not five... are inserted.
The Attorney General, a member of Cabinet, directly appointed by the President, and the government’s designated legal adviser, somehow sees all this.
And advises that the Bill be sent to the Ministry of Finance, for which the President is the official minister, to obtain the mandatory Certificate of Financial Implications.
The Ministry of Finance duly issues the Certificate of Financial Implications.
And the Bill, now laden with all the smuggled-in clauses, is tabled by the Minister of State for Internal Affairs -another direct appointee and member of Cabinet.
It is tabled in a Parliament whose Speaker swears to follow and fall in the name of the President, His Son, and the Daughters.
Your Cabinet is present.
Your Attorney General is present.
For the next two weeks, your Attorney General vehemently defends the Bill on the floor and across your government’s media.
Your latest big blue fish recruit, a law professor, almost without prompting, steps in to defend the Bill nonetheless.
Your toad-eaters, who, also swear by the Father, if not the Son, besmirch anyone opposed to the Bill, branding them vent merchants and foreign agents.
Conductor?
Maaso awo ku Mulago stage
Fellow citizens kiwedde!Governor @BOU_Official ayogedde!
This Bill restricts cross-border payments.
“A country without reserves is not sovereign.”
Governor Michael Atingi-Ego!
#RejectSovereigntyBill
https://t.co/LO9j93YY6o via @YouTube
Well said. The tell is who the law burdens. A maid in Dubai, an advocate, an accountant, a carbon project lead. Not the people profiting from the regime. Sovereignty is just the branding…
Sovereignty matters, and every serious state has to think about how to protect its institutions and its people from undue external influence. I understand that concern.
I also think the Sovereignty Bill comes from a real place. There is genuine anxiety about foreign funding influencing domestic priorities, digital platforms shaping public opinion, and outside actors inserting themselves into national questions. Those are fair concerns.
My difficulty is with how broadly this Bill is framed, and the very real unintended effects that come with that.
The Bill defines a foreigner to include not just a non-Ugandan citizen, but also a Ugandan citizen residing outside Uganda, and it even allows the Minister, by statutory instrument, to declare any person or institution to be a foreigner. That is where the problem starts.
Our Constitution already tells us who a citizen is and it does not stop citizenship because an Ugandan lives abroad. A Ugandan can be born outside Uganda and still be a citizen if a parent or grandparent was an Ugandan citizen by birth. Sovereignty begins with that constitutional idea of citizenship. So when an ordinary law starts treating Ugandans abroad as foreigners, and gives a Minister power to expand that category even further, it raises a serious constitutional problem.
And once you look at the practical effect, it becomes even harder to ignore.
A maid in Dubai sending money home to her mother can now be pulled into a framework that treats that money as coming from a foreigner. An accountant working for a foreign-owned company, or for an NGO funded abroad, may find that what used to be ordinary work is now viewed through the language of foreign influence. An advocate advising an international client, a consultant retained by a regional investor, a researcher working on a donor-funded project, or someone in the climate space trying to structure carbon finance can all end up inside a system that assumes suspicion first and normal economic activity later.
The climate and investment point is especially important. Uganda is trying to position itself as a credible place for climate finance, carbon projects, regional capital, and new forms of cross-border work. But if the legal message is that money from “foreigners” is presumptively suspect, and those working with that money may struggle to register, receive funds, or access banking services smoothly, that does not inspire confidence. It adds another layer of uncertainty to a workforce that is already under pressure.
Clauses 25 and 26 make that concern even sharper. Section 25 requires supervised institutions not to pay out money to an agent of a foreigner without declarations and, where applicable, proof of written authorisation. Section 26 then requires returns detailing funds received and how they were used. In practice, that means more friction in banking, more compliance burdens, more hesitation by financial institutions, and slower movement of money for people whose only “problem” is that they work with, for, or receive funds from someone the law now calls a foreigner. For the payments and banking sector, that is not a small issue. It also means Advocates are no longer covered by privilege .
I also worry about work and opportunity. At a time when many Ugandans are trying to piece together livelihoods across borders, through remote work, consulting, diaspora support, development work, and regional investment, this kind of framework can shrink opportunity instead of protecting it. It can make employers cautious, banks risk-averse, and investors uncertain.
So for me, the question is not whether sovereignty should be protected. It should. The question is whether we can protect it without criminalising ordinary life, without treating the diaspora as foreign, without putting basic financial access at risk, and without using an ordinary law to blur the constitutional meaning of citizenship.
That is the balance we need to get right.
Two con men told an emperor they’d make him clothes invisible to fools. Nobody admitted they couldn’t see anything. The emperor walked around naked while everyone clapped. Until a kid said “he’s got nothing on.” Sometimes it takes the person with nothing to lose to say what everyone’s thinking.
@ZeeroBrain Why I stopped following such and similar on other media! Each show must have ‘someone’ so as to give a whiff of legitimacy for discourse - otherwise risk being branded rebels