OPINION | The Uganda Law Society (ULS) has been thrust into controversy following President Isaac Ssemakadde’s decision to expel the Attorney General and Solicitor General from its council. This decision is creating ripples that are shaking the very core of Uganda’s legal community, with many asking the question; Was this a bold move to defend the independence of the legal profession, or did it cross the line into legal overreach?

At the heart of this storm are two critical questions: Does the ULS President have the authority to remove the Attorney General, a statutory ex officio member of the ULS council? And, should government officials, like the Attorney General and Solicitor General, retain a prominent role in a body meant to hold the state accountable? These questions demand reflection because they touch on the delicate balance between state power and professional autonomy.

The Attorney General’s position on the ULS council is more than just symbolic. It’s enshrined in Uganda’s legal framework, connecting the state’s top legal advisor to the very body meant to hold the government accountable. Removing him from this role isn’t just a procedural decision—it’s a direct challenge to the legal framework that grants him that position. Can the ULS President truly expel someone placed there by law? The lack of explicit legal authority to remove ex officio members complicates Ssemakadde’s actions, leaving us wondering: Is this a bold attempt to reset power dynamics or an unlawful overreach?

Ssemakadde, a firebrand reformist, has clashed publicly with Kiryowa Kiwanuka, who represents the state’s legal apparatus.  For him, the decision to expel the Attorney General carries the weight of his broader struggle—a battle between reform and entrenched power, independence and state influence. It is a declaration of independence from a government he believes has overstepped in judicial matters. For the Attorney General, Ssemakadde’s decision is a reckless power play that undermines justice and due process, the very principles the ULS is meant to uphold.

A lawyer of Ssemakadde’s acumen must have carefully assessed the legality of this expulsion. This raises important questions— was this decision driven by principle or personality? Is this move more about reshaping the profession, or is it a personal vendetta against a government figure? If our legal institutions are led by personality-driven clashes, what does that mean for their integrity? Is the ULS risking its impartiality and professionalism in favor of a politically charged battle?

For years, critics have argued that the Attorney General’s presence on the ULS council is a conflict of interest. How can a government lawyer, whose job is to defend state interests, also be part of the very body tasked with holding that same government accountable? The ULS is meant to ensure government oversight, but when its leadership includes individuals who are tasked with justifying state actions, the autonomy of the profession becomes questionable. And what message does it send about professional integrity when public officials might also have private business interests on the side?

The expulsion of these government officials has, in some ways, laid bare the internal contradictions within the ULS. The Attorney General’s role, once seen as a bridge between the legal profession and the state, now appears as a point of tension. Ssemakadde’s decision may have been driven by a legitimate desire to free the ULS from these conflicts, but the method chosen—unilateral expulsion—has drawn criticism for undermining due process. Instead of pursuing relevant amendments or engaging in legislative advocacy, the president acted alone, a decision that risks politicizing the ULS and weakening its credibility.

The aftermath of this decision extends beyond the immediate question of governance. It touches on the future of the legal profession in Uganda and its ability to function as an independent body, free from external influences. Reform is needed, and the structural issues raised by Ssemakadde’s actions cannot be ignored. However, reform pursued through shortcuts and personal battles weakens the foundations of the very changes it seeks to implement. A ULS that upholds due process and transparency is crucial to maintaining trust within the legal community and the broader public.

Ssemakadde’s bold move has thrust the ULS into uncharted territory, where questions of governance, professionalism, and independence now dominate the conversation. The expulsion of the Attorney General and Solicitor General marks a turning point, not only for the individuals involved but for the profession itself. This moment will either pave the way for lasting reform or signal a descent into further internal strife. The outcome, though uncertain, will undoubtedly shape the future of the legal profession in Uganda.