ARUSHA, Uganda | Kenyan lawyer and former Kenyan Justice Minister Martha Karua’s attempt to practice law in Uganda has escalated to the East African Court of Justice (EACJ). This follows the Uganda Law Council’s refusal to grant her a special practicing certificate to represent Uganda’s opposition leader, Dr. Kizza Besigye, in his ongoing legal battle.

Dr. Besigye, currently on remand at Luzira Prison, faces charges of security offenses and unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. He was arrested alongside his aide, Hajj Obeid Lutale, in Nairobi, Kenya, and transported back to Uganda. To lead his defense, Besigye’s legal team enlisted Karua, a well-known advocate within the East African region.

Karua applied for a special practicing certificate in December under Uganda’s Advocates Act, which allows foreign lawyers from Commonwealth countries to practice temporarily if they affiliate with a local law firm. However, the Uganda Law Council rejected her application, citing concerns that it was politically motivated.

In response to the rejection, the East African Law Society (EALS) has filed a case against Uganda at the EACJ, arguing that the decision contravenes Article 126 of the East African Community (EAC) Treaty. This article promotes the harmonization of legal practices and the facilitation of cross-border professional services.

The EALS contends that Uganda’s decision highlights the lack of a Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) for the legal profession within the EAC, a gap that undermines the free movement of services. Other professions, such as accountancy and engineering, have successfully negotiated MRAs to enable regional practice.

The Uganda Law Council maintains that its decision aligns with Section 18 of the Advocates Act, which governs the issuance of temporary practicing certificates. It argues that Karua’s application was not solely professional but influenced by political considerations.

The EACJ has issued a 45-day notice to Uganda’s Attorney General to respond to the petition. If no response is filed, the court will proceed with the case in Uganda’s absence.

This case could set a significant precedent for cross-border legal practice within the EAC. A decision in favor of the EALS may pave the way for improved regional integration in the legal profession, while a ruling for Uganda may reinforce the authority of national regulations over foreign practitioners.