Lawyer Elison Karuhanga has broken his silence, mounting a detailed rebuttal against Uganda Law Society (ULS) President Isaac Ssemakadde in a dispute that is exposing deep divisions within Uganda’s legal fraternity.
In a lengthy statement issued hours after Ssemakadde’s open letter, Karuhanga framed the row as a broader contest over the future direction of the ULS, questioning whether the body should remain an independent professional institution or evolve into a politically aligned movement.
“This is about more than one advocate attacking another,” Karuhanga said. “It raises fundamental questions about leadership, institutional independence, and the duty we owe one another as advocates.”
The exchange follows Ssemakadde’s criticism of Karuhanga for allegedly remaining silent after the reported arrest and abduction of senior lawyer and former Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago in June.
The ULS president had described the silence as “complicity,” escalating tensions within the Bar.
But Karuhanga dismissed the accusation as a “distraction,” arguing that the responsibility to respond to such incidents lies with the institution, not individual lawyers.
“The question is not where individual advocates were,” he said. “The question is where the Uganda Law Society was.”
He maintained that his approach has consistently prioritised institutional integrity over personal positioning, citing his record of service under multiple ULS presidents.
Karuhanga said he supported Ssemakadde’s leadership after his election despite publicly criticising what he termed as “vulgarity and division” in the current administration.
“I have always been a servant of the Bar, not of personalities,” he said, adding that respect for elected leadership is essential to maintaining the legitimacy of professional bodies.
Karuhanga also revealed that his team cancelled a scheduled online forum to allow the ULS to take the lead in addressing Lukwago’s case, arguing that this demonstrated deference to institutional authority rather than silence.
“We deliberately yielded the platform because we believed there should be one institutional voice,” he stated.
On the question of neutrality, Karuhanga rejected claims that he advocates indifference to injustice.
Instead, he drew a distinction between neutrality and independence, insisting that the ULS must remain politically non-aligned to effectively engage all arms of government and uphold the rule of law.
“The moment it becomes politically aligned, it ceases to belong equally to all advocates,” he said.
The lawyer further accused Ssemakadde of using official ULS communication channels to pursue what he termed a personal dispute, warning that such actions risk undermining unity within the profession.
Karuhanga also challenged Ssemakadde’s leadership record, questioning what tangible reforms or protections had been achieved under his tenure.