A public fallout within Uganda’s legal fraternity intensified after lawyer Elison Karuhanga defended his conduct over the arrest of Erias Lukwago, pushing back against accusations by Uganda Law Society (ULS) President Isaac Ssemakadde.
Karuhanga, in a detailed response, reframed the controversy as a governance and institutional integrity issue, arguing that Ssemakadde’s criticism misrepresents both his actions and the role of the Bar.
He maintained that responsibility for responding to threats against lawyers lies squarely with the ULS as a statutory body, not individual advocates acting independently.
“The Uganda Law Society was established to represent and protect its members. That duty cannot be outsourced to individuals issuing statements on demand,” Karuhanga said.
The dispute stems from Ssemakadde’s earlier open letter accusing Karuhanga of remaining silent following Lukwago’s reported arrest by security operatives in June.
The ULS president described the silence as evidence of “complicity,” a claim Karuhanga now dismisses as politically motivated and misleading.
Shift From Personal Clash to Institutional Debate
In his rebuttal, Karuhanga broadened the discussion beyond personal differences, questioning whether the ULS should retain its professional independence or transition into a politically aligned entity.
He cautioned that politicising the Bar would erode its credibility and ability to engage all arms of government.
“No lawyer should be neutral between legality and illegality. But institutional independence is not neutrality,” he said, drawing a distinction between professional duty and political alignment.
Karuhanga argued that maintaining distance from partisan positions enables the Law Society to challenge both state and non-state actors without bias.
He warned that transforming the body into a political platform risks alienating sections of the profession and undermining its statutory mandate.
Defence of Actions on Lukwago Case
Addressing the Lukwago incident directly, Karuhanga outlined steps taken by his team, including cancelling a scheduled online forum to allow the ULS to take the lead in communicating on behalf of lawyers.
He said subsequent discussions on professional platforms addressed the matter in detail, countering claims that he had remained silent.
“We chose to strengthen the institutional voice rather than compete for attention,” he said.
He added that a similar approach had been applied in previous cases involving detained lawyers, insisting that consistency—not selective outrage—guided his decisions.
Criticism of ULS Leadership Style
Karuhanga also accused Ssemakadde of personalising institutional platforms, alleging that official ULS communication channels were used to pursue individual disputes.
He argued that such actions risk deepening divisions within the legal community.
“The Bar belongs to all its members. Its platforms should unite, not divide,” he stated.
The lawyer further questioned Ssemakadde’s leadership record, challenging him to demonstrate concrete reforms or protections achieved during his tenure.