KAMPALA, Uganda | The Uganda Law Society (ULS) is embroiled in a leadership crisis that has brought underlying governance challenges to the forefront. A cascade of contentious actions, including suspensions and counter-suspensions, has plunged the organization into a power struggle, raising concerns about its stability and reputation.

The turmoil began when ULS Secretary Phillip Munaabi issued a suspension order against ULS President Isaac Ssemakadde and Vice President Anthony Asiimwe. The suspension, citing allegations of misconduct such as inappropriate language directed at state officials, was framed as a measure to protect the Society’s reputation. However, the move was met with immediate opposition. Ssemakadde, supported by a faction of the ULS Council, contested the legality of Munaabi’s actions and responded by suspending the Secretary.

In an effort to address the escalating tensions, President Ssemakadde has called for an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM), seeking to engage the Society’s general membership in resolving the disputes. The agenda for the EGM includes deliberations on the removal of the ULS Secretary and the Central Region Representative—council members accused of orchestrating the attempt to unseat Ssemakadde.

This power struggle has deepened divisions within the Society. Critics of Ssemakadde, citing his alleged remarks against the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), argue that his leadership style lacks the decorum necessary for a professional body. Conversely, a significant number of lawyers have rallied behind him, praising his willingness to confront systemic issues within the legal profession.

Supporters of Ssemakadde view his leadership as transformative, prioritizing critical issues like access to justice, institutional integrity, and the independence of the legal profession over maintaining appearances. “We need leaders who are unafraid to confront uncomfortable truths,” remarked one lawyer, capturing the sentiment of those who advocate for bold, substantive leadership over cautious conservatism.

Opponents, however, argue that professionalism demands a balance between boldness and decorum. They contend that Ssemakadde’s approach risks damaging the ULS’s relationships with government institutions and undermining the Society’s credibility. This disagreement has sparked broader discussions about the role of the ULS and the balance between advocating for reform and maintaining institutional integrity.

At the heart of the crisis is the Uganda Law Society Act of 1956, which governs the ULS. The Act places the management of the Society’s affairs under its Council, comprised of elected officials, including the President, Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer. However, the legal framework lacks clear guidelines on the removal of elected officeholders, creating a procedural ambiguity that has fueled conflicting interpretations of authority.

While the Council wields operational authority, actions such as the suspension or removal of key council members arguably require the broader membership involvement through an Annual General Meeting (AGM) or an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM). This procedural void has intensified the current standoff, with each faction asserting divergent interpretations of their powers under the law.

The Uganda Law Society stands at a critical juncture. The upcoming EGM offers not only an opportunity to address the immediate leadership crisis but also a platform to embark on essential governance reforms. The Society must seize this moment to fortify its regulatory framework and reinforce the principles of accountability and transparency.