Martha Karua denied entry into Uganda

Kenyan Senior Counsel and former Justice Minister Martha Karua was recently denied entry into Uganda at Entebbe International Airport, despite traveling to attend a high-profile bail application for Ugandan lawyer and opposition figure Elias Lukwago. This incident, occurring while her colleague, Law Society of Kenya President Charles Kanjama, was permitted entry, raises significant questions regarding the free movement of persons and services within the East African Community (EAC) framework. The denial, for which no official reason was provided by Ugandan immigration authorities, highlights a potential conflict between national immigration prerogatives and the foundational principles of regional integration, particularly those enshrined in the EAC Treaty and the Common Market Protocol. It underscores the challenges faced by legal professionals engaging in cross-border practice within the bloc and the broader implications for the rule of law and regional comity.

On Monday, June 22, 2026, Kenyan Senior Counsel Martha Karua, a prominent lawyer and former Justice Minister, was denied entry into Uganda upon her arrival at Entebbe International Airport. Karua had traveled to Kampala to join the defense team for Ugandan opposition lawyer Elias Lukwago, who was facing a bail application ruling on charges of misprision of treason. Notably, Law Society of Kenya (LSK) President Charles Kanjama, who accompanied Karua, was granted entry, making the selective denial of entry to Karua particularly conspicuous. Ugandan immigration officials reportedly offered no explanation for their decision, ordering her immediate return to Kenya.

This incident is not merely a diplomatic spat; it carries profound legal implications for the East African Community (EAC) and the principles of regional integration. The denial of entry to a senior legal professional, engaged in a legitimate legal mission within a partner state, challenges the spirit and letter of the EAC Treaty and its Protocol on the Establishment of the East African Community Common Market, which champion the free movement of persons, labour, and services. This article will critically examine the legal framework governing free movement within the EAC, analyze the potential justifications for such a denial under both regional and national law, and discuss the broader ramifications for legal practice and the rule of law across the East African bloc.

The East African Community (EAC) was established with the overarching objective of fostering economic, social, and political integration among its Partner States. A cornerstone of this integration agenda is the free movement of factors of production, including persons, labour, and services. Article 104 of the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community (1999) explicitly commits Partner States to ensuring a conducive environment for the free movement of persons, labour, and services, alongside the rights of establishment and residence for their citizens within the Community.

Further operationalizing these commitments, the Protocol on the Establishment of the East African Community Common Market (2009) provides specific guarantees. Article 7 of the Common Market Protocol stipulates that Partner States shall guarantee the free movement of persons who are citizens of other Partner States within their territories, ensuring non-discrimination based on nationality. This includes entry without a visa, free movement within the territory, the right to stay, and the right to exit without restrictions. While the Protocol aims to facilitate the free movement of workers, including professionals in legal fields, it also acknowledges that Partner States may impose limitations on grounds of public policy, public security, or public health, albeit with a requirement to notify other Partner States.

At the national level, Uganda's immigration regime is primarily governed by the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act, Cap 66. This Act outlines provisions for citizenship, immigration control measures, and the regulation of aliens within Uganda, granting immigration officers powers to control entry and exit. However, these national laws are expected to be interpreted and applied in conformity with Uganda's international and regional obligations, including those arising from its membership in the EAC.

The denial of entry to Senior Counsel Martha Karua, a citizen of an EAC Partner State, directly implicates the fundamental principles of the East African Community Common Market Protocol. Article 7 of the Protocol unequivocally guarantees the free movement of persons, including the right to entry and stay for citizens of other Partner States without a visa. Karua, as a Senior Counsel, was traveling in a professional capacity to provide legal services, an activity that falls squarely within the ambit of the free movement of services and labour, which the Protocol also seeks to facilitate.

While the Common Market Protocol allows for limitations on the free movement of persons on grounds of public policy, public security, or public health, such restrictions must be necessary, proportionate, and, crucially, communicated. In Karua's case, Ugandan immigration authorities provided no reason for her denial of entry. This lack of transparency undermines the principles of legal certainty and predictability essential for a functioning common market and casts doubt on the legitimacy of the action. The absence of a stated reason makes it impossible to assess whether the denial was based on a legitimate ground permissible under the Protocol or if it constituted an arbitrary exercise of national immigration powers.

Furthermore, the selective nature of the denial, where LSK President Charles Kanjama was permitted entry while Karua was turned away, suggests that the decision may have been politically motivated rather than based on a general immigration policy or security concern. This raises concerns about discrimination based on nationality, which is expressly prohibited by Article 7(2) of the Common Market Protocol. The incident also echoes a similar event a year prior when Karua was denied entry into Tanzania, indicating a potential pattern of restricting the movement of certain individuals within the EAC, particularly those involved in politically sensitive legal matters.

From a national law perspective, while the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act, Cap 66, grants immigration officers powers to control entry, these powers are not absolute. They must be exercised in a manner consistent with Uganda's international treaty obligations. An arbitrary denial of entry without stated reasons, especially to a professional from a Partner State, could be challenged as a breach of Uganda's commitments under the EAC Treaty and the Common Market Protocol. Such actions erode the principle of comity among Partner States and hinder the development of a cohesive regional legal and economic space.

The denial of entry to Senior Counsel Martha Karua into Uganda represents a significant challenge to the foundational principles of the East African Community, particularly the free movement of persons and services. The absence of any stated reason for the immigration authorities' decision creates a concerning precedent, undermining transparency, legal certainty, and the spirit of regional integration. It suggests a potential disregard for Uganda's obligations under the EAC Treaty and the Common Market Protocol, which are designed to foster a seamless environment for citizens and professionals across the bloc.

For legal practitioners, this incident highlights the inherent risks and unpredictability of engaging in cross-border legal work within the EAC when national authorities may arbitrarily override regional commitments. It underscores the need for robust advocacy from legal professional bodies, such as the Law Society of Kenya and the Uganda Law Society, to ensure adherence to regional protocols and protect the rights of lawyers to practice across Partner States. Moving forward, it will be crucial to observe whether this incident prompts a formal response from EAC institutions or diplomatic engagement between Kenya and Uganda, aiming to clarify the permissible grounds for restricting movement and reinforce the binding nature of regional agreements to ensure a predictable and rule-of-law-based environment for all citizens of the East African Community.