KAMPALA, Uganda | The Uganda Law Society’s decision to expel the Attorney General and Solicitor General’s representatives from its Council has been challenged in the High Court. The decision, issued through Executive Order No. 1 of 2024 by newly appointed ULS President Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde on October 14, reflects Ssemakadde’s vision for a ULS that operates free from perceived government influence. His goal, he argues, is to bolster the independence and integrity of the Society, allowing it to serve the legal profession and the public without interference.

City lawyer Tonny Tumukunde, known for his enthusiasm to advancing the interests of young lawyers in Uganda, has been vocal in his opposition to the expulsion order. Together with co-applicant Byamazima Joshua, Tumukunde argues that the decision violated key principles of natural justice, as it was executed without offering a fair hearing to the Attorney General, Solicitor General, or their representatives. The plaintiffs contend that the order oversteps the executive council’s statutory limits and undermines the governance structure of the Society. They are seeking a judicial review to nullify the executive order, asserting that it is unconstitutional, as well as an injunction to prevent the enforcement of similar actions in the future.

On one side, supporters of Ssemakadde’s executive order view the move as a bold and necessary step to reinforce the ULS’s independence. These advocates argue that removing government officials from the ULS Council could help prevent conflicts of interest and safeguard the Society’s ability to speak out on matters of justice without fear of political influence. They view Ssemakadde’s decision as a means to strengthen the Society’s voice in legal matters and enhance its role as an autonomous entity representing the interests of Uganda’s legal professionals.

On the other side, critics question the decision’s procedural integrity and its broader implications for governance. They argue that while the goal of independence is laudable, the executive council’s move lacks transparency and may have exceeded its legal mandate. These critics emphasize the need for procedural safeguards to ensure that any decisions affecting the Society’s governance structure are made lawfully and with full consideration of all members’ rights. Tumukunde and other members warn that the decision, if left unchecked, could create a precedent for overreach by the executive council and destabilize the carefully balanced governance structure of the ULS.

As the hearing of the case, Byamazima Joshua, Tonny Tumukunde v. Isaac Kimaze & The Uganda Law Society, begins on 8^th November 2024, lawyers across Uganda are watching closely. The outcome has the potential to set a significant precedent for the governance of professional bodies in Uganda, particularly with respect to balancing independence with adherence to established procedural standards. The High Court’s ruling will not only clarify the limits of the executive council’s authority but may also shape the governance framework of the ULS, defining how far the Society can go in making structural changes aimed at safeguarding its autonomy.