NRM's Enoch Barata Defends Sovereignty Bill Against Misrepresentation Claims

Enoch Barata, the National Resistance Movement’s (NRM) Director of Legal Services, has hit back at criticisms labeling the Protection of Sovereignty Bill as a tool to suppress dissent. In an interview, he explained the bill’s core purpose is to safeguard Uganda’s sovereignty from harmful external interference.

Barata emphasized that the legislation protects national policies, state processes, culture, and social well-being from undue foreign sway. He clarified that Ugandans remain sovereign, and the bill ensures they can exercise this without negative outside pressures, such as foreign pushes for genetically modified organisms that could lead to food dependency.

On economic sabotage—a new offense in the bill—Barata cited historical examples like interference in a beans-for-transformers deal with Tanzania. He stressed this does not target domestic criticism of the economy, calling such claims intellectually dishonest.

Addressing concerns over vague provisions on publications, Barata noted the bill mandates registration for foreign principals and their agents to ensure transparency. Foreigners can still operate in Uganda, but disruptive activities undermining policy must be disclosed and penalized only if they serve foreign interests.

Barata rejected comparisons to a recent court ruling annulling parts of the Computer Misuse Act, attributing that decision to procedural issues like quorum failures. He advocated parliamentary refinement if provisions seem overbroad, aligning them with the constitution.

Critics prioritizing economic woes over this bill miss the point, Barata said, as Parliament handles over 10 bills simultaneously. Prioritization allows multiple issues to advance.

For civil society, the bill enhances funding visibility rather than curtailing it. Barata called transparency mutual: organizations demanding government accountability must themselves be open, especially if acting for foreign principals, like funding opposed to Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act.

Academic fears of coerced research are valid but not unique, Barata argued. Laws against wrongs like theft carry misuse risks, yet safeguards such as regulations and appeals to courts can mitigate abuses.

Source: Daily Monitor (Uganda)