ARNOLD TSUNGA

Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission Act, section 9: "Validity of decisions and acts of Commission and Working Groups No decision or act of the Commission and any Working Group or act done under their authority shall be invalid solely because— (a) the Commission or Working Group consisted of less than the number of persons for which provision is made in paragraphs 6 and 7; or (b) a disqualified person acted as a Commissioner or member of a Working Group at the time the decision was taken or the act was done or authorised; if the decision was taken or the act was done or authorised by a majority vote of the persons who at the time were entitled to act as Commissioners or members of a Working Group".

Uganda’s proposed Sovereignty Bill is the ONLY law in the world openly attempting something this sweeping: it legally turns its own citizens abroad into “foreigners”. The Bill is explicit. A “foreigner” includes “Ugandan citizens residing abroad”. That single clause redraws the boundary of citizenship. It means diaspora money, relationships, and even family support can fall under foreign control rules. So the implications are not abstract. -A mother in Mbale receiving school fees from her son in London. -A boda boda rider in Gulu financed by a brother in Dubai. -A small shop in Mbarara stocked using capital sent from Boston. All could, in theory, fall under foreign influence rules. Then the net widens. The definition of an “agent of a foreigner” includes anyone “directly or indirectly… financed or subsidised” by a foreigner. Not directed. Not controlled. Simply funded. -A journalist paid by a locally registered outlet that receives donor support. -A researcher on a project with partial foreign grants. -An NGO worker whose salary traces back, however distantly, to external funding. All can be classified as “agents”. Clause 22 then imposes a hard ceiling: “a cap on foreign funding of approximately UGX 400 million within any twelve-month period”, beyond which ministerial approval is required. So: -A private hospital built with diaspora investment. -A school supported by an international foundation. -A construction firm using a foreign loan. Then comes the sharpest edge. -Clause 13 creates the offence of economic sabotage, criminalising anyone who “publishes information… that weakens or damages the economic system”. So: -A newspaper reporting a currency slide. -An analyst warning about debt stress. -A civil society group highlighting inflation pressures. Even if accurate, such reporting could fall foul of the law. Finally, Clause 5 prohibits activities that promote foreign interests “against the interests of Uganda”, a phrase the law does not define. Put together, these clauses do something unprecedented. -They do not just regulate foreign influence. -They redefine who is foreign. -They extend control from politics into everyday economic and social life. In most countries, including Ethiopia and Ethiopia, sovereignty laws manage outsiders. Here, Uganda redefined outsiders to include its citizens, basically rewriting the 1995 constitution. Of course it’s in the preparatory and consultation stage and could change for better - or WORSE!

😭😭Murimi wefodya osungirwa kubvunza kuti " Sei fodya yangu isina kutengwa zvakanaka ." ndokutosungirwa izvozvo.Haasikuda nefodya yake chete chete. This is how the junta operates . By Ginya By Force unongoitengesa chete nomutengo wakaderera wavanoda.

Respect!!