Explainer Series 5: Examining the “Foreign Agent” Narrative in Uganda
When Sovereignty Meets Scrutiny: Global Reactions to Uganda’s “Foreign Agent” Framing
The growing use of the “foreign agent” narrative in Uganda has drawn a lot of attention beyond its borders. Uganda’s experience is not isolated. Across Africa and beyond, governments have increasingly borrowed the narrative from global authoritarian playbooks, particularly from Russia’s post-2012 approach to civil society regulation.
The narrative which paints some civil society organisations (CSOs), independent media, and activists as tools for external interference has raised questions among international observers about its impact on democracy, civic space, and governance.
Over the years, the civil society sector has evolved from humanitarian aid, health and education and has now expanded to governance, human rights and elections, often receiving external support. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) whose messages aligned with international campaigns increased and started facing allegations of serving the West.
When oil was discovered in the Albertine region in 2006, NGOs advocating for transparency and environmental accountability in oil governance faced allegations of promoting foreign agendas.
Since then, different international actors and organisations have responded through advocacy, diplomatic engagement, and public criticism.
Global Advocacy and Calls for Transparency
One of the key areas that has attracted international scrutiny is Uganda’s natural resource management, especially in the oil sector. Organisations such as Global Witness have urged global financial institutions like the World Bank to ensure full transparency and accountability before approving loans tied to Uganda’s oil projects here, here and condemning the arrest of climate activists here.
“The World Bank should not hand over more money to the Government of Uganda without concrete guarantees that it will manage its oil and mining sectors, and the revenues they generate, with complete transparency,” George Boden, a campaigner at Global Witness, said in a published press release.
This advocacy reflects a broader concern: that framing NGOs as “foreign agents” could discredit legitimate watchdog efforts aimed at preventing corruption and ensuring fair distribution of national wealth.
International actors have therefore emphasised the need for Uganda to maintain open governance systems that allow civil society to operate freely without fear of suspicion or reprisal.
International Concern During Election Cycles
Election periods in Uganda often amplify tensions around foreign influence. Following the 2011 presidential elections, there were “walk to work” protests here, here, here, here , here here. The government accused some opposition figures and activists involved in the “Walk to Work” protests of receiving foreign funding to destabilise the country, which Dr Kizza Besigye denied.
“What money is needed for demonstrating? We are walking on foot and don’t even need money for taxis.” Besigye said in 2011, adding, “Even if there was a need for a little money, why would we go for it outside? There is a mistaken belief that Ugandans cannot support their own activities. We have never got money from outside.”
These claims mirror a recurring pattern seen across multiple election cycles, where criticism of government actions is often linked to alleged foreign interference.
Such accusations have drawn attention from international observers and election monitors, who caution that framing domestic dissent as externally driven risks undermining democratic participation and discouraging legitimate political expression.
Criticism of Government Strategies
Beyond elections, human rights organisations have consistently voiced concern over Uganda’s tightening civic space.
The 2022 arrest of journalist Norman Tumuhimbise, known for producing content critical of senior government officials, sparked widespread condemnation from international human rights groups here, here, here, here, here.
Organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International highlighted the case as evidence of increasing repression, urging Ugandan authorities to uphold freedom of expression and protect journalists from intimidation.
According to the 2023 Human Rights Watch report: “Authorities in Uganda, as in previous years, failed to hold security forces accountable for serious human rights abuses. The police and the military, which were implicated in serious rights violations around the 2021 general elections, continued to restrict rights to freedom of expression and assembly, especially for government critics and political opposition. The authorities placed restrictions on civil society organisations, media, and online communication, as state agents routinely harassed and intimidated journalists.”
These responses reflect the growing unease about how legal and security measures are being used to stifle voices of accountability under the pretext of protecting national sovereignty.
Calls to Strengthen Civil Society Protections
In light of these trends, international partners and regional bodies have encouraged Uganda to adopt reforms that protect civil society from undue restriction.
Proposals have included reviewing NGO laws, fostering open dialogue between government and non-state actors, and creating safer environments for advocacy work.
The European Union and several UN agencies have, in various statements, emphasised that a vibrant civil society is central to democratic governance and that mistrust fuelled by “foreign agent” narratives can weaken both domestic legitimacy and international cooperation.
“EU Annual Human Rights and Democracy Country Reports (2022 and 2023): These reports, released by the European External Action Service (EEAS), have documented and criticised the use of “foreign agent” legislation, including new categories like “person affiliated with a foreign agent” or “person under foreign influence.”
The reports note that these measures have been used to target activists and stigmatise civil society organisations and media.”
From calls for transparency in the oil sector to diplomatic statements during election seasons, international reactions reveal a consistent theme: concern that the “foreign agent” label is being used to delegitimise legitimate civic work.
While Uganda maintains that such measures protect national sovereignty, external observers argue that they risk shrinking the country’s democratic space.