Uganda Law Society: Judicial Embargo Halts Key Cases

• A judicial embargo, initiated by former judicial leaders, has indefinitely removed all Uganda Law Society (ULS) litigation from the Court of Appeal cause-list since July 7, 2025.
• ULS President Isaac Ssemakadde remains in exile due to an unaddressed contempt conviction appeal, preventing him from fulfilling his duties.
• Key appeals challenging the nullification of ULS Council meetings and the method of electing ULS nominees to the Judicial Service Commission are stalled.
• Two Constitutional Court petitions questioning "colonial hangover laws" and the legitimacy of judicial appointments by an improperly constituted Judicial Service Commission are also pending.
• Failed mediation efforts have led to over 20 collateral cases in the High Court enforcing the very rulings the ULS is appealing, creating significant legal uncertainty.

The unresolved appeals and the effective incapacitation of the ULS leadership create significant legal uncertainty and pose a critical threat to the rule of law, potentially affecting case outcomes and professional governance.

The Uganda Law Society (ULS) is currently operating under a significant judicial embargo, which has effectively halted the progression of critical legal matters involving the organization and its leadership. This directive, issued by the former Deputy Chief Justice on July 7, 2025, specifically targets all litigation connected to the ULS and its current executive, leading to the indefinite removal of these cases from the Court of Appeal's cause-list. The action followed an earlier declaration on February 7, 2025, by the former Chief Justice, who stated that the ULS and its leadership were "out of bounds," notably denying the ULS President a speaking opportunity at a key Bar-Bench event. This occurred despite prior agreements for dialogue between the ULS and the Chief Justice's office regarding contentious issues affecting the relationship between the Bar and the Bench.

The impact of this embargo is particularly acute for the ULS President, Isaac Ssemakadde, who faces a conviction, is in exile, and is described as persecuted. For the second consecutive year, the ULS Vice President has had to represent the society at public events due to Ssemakadde's inability to attend. The directive has placed the entire Uganda Law Society under what has been termed a "siege," preventing the resolution of fundamental disputes that affect its governance and operational capacity. Intriguingly, the embargo was reportedly initiated at the behest of certain members of the Bar, a revelation that underscores internal divisions within the legal fraternity.

Several pivotal cases, including three appeals scheduled for July 10, 2025, before Justice Egonda-Ntende’s panel, have been directly impacted by the judicial embargo. Among these is Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2025, ULS v. Mugisha Hashim, known as the "quorum case." This appeal challenges a High Court ruling by then-Judge Musa Ssekaana, which invalidated ULS Council meetings, thereby rendering the society dysfunctional. A central issue in this dispute is the expulsion of the Attorney General and Solicitor General from the ULS Council, a matter that continues to divide the Bar. Another crucial case is Civil Appeal No. 99 of 2025, ULS v. Pheona Wall, or the "JSC case," which contests a decision that nullified the ULS's method for electing its nominees to the 7th Judicial Service Commission. This directly raises questions about who ultimately influences judicial appointments.

The embargo also affects Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2025, Ssemakadde v. Mugisha Hashim, which seeks to overturn Ssemakadde's contempt conviction for "scandalizing the judiciary." The unresolved status of this appeal means the ULS President remains in exile, unable to fulfill his duties, including sitting on the Law Council where personal presence is deemed mandatory by the chairperson's interpretation. Beyond these appeals, two significant petitions remain stalled in the Constitutional Court. Petition 16 of 2024 challenges Sections 4 and 9 of the ULS Act and Section 14(1) of the Advocates Act, described as "colonial hangover laws." Furthermore, Petition No. 12 of 2025 questions the legality of the Judicial Service Act and its regulations gazetted on January 21, 2025, specifically regarding the recruitment of the judiciary's top management—including the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice, Principal Judge, and Chief Registrar—by a Judicial Service Commission potentially lacking the constitutionally required ULS nominees under Article 146(2)(c).

The ongoing judicial embargo and the unresolved legal challenges present a profound crisis for the rule of law in Uganda, impacting judicial independence and the integrity of the Bar's governance. The inability of the ULS to have its cases heard, despite all necessary conferencing notes and submissions being filed, points to a systemic obstruction of justice. The question of who controls judicial appointments, highlighted by the ULS v. Pheona Wall case, is particularly critical, as the proper constitution of the Judicial Service Commission is essential for legitimate judicial leadership. The effective incapacitation of the ULS leadership, particularly the exile of its President due to an unaddressed contempt conviction appeal, severely undermines the society's ability to advocate for an independent and fearless Bar.

Attempts at mediation, including a promise from the former Deputy Chief Justice for a "mini-session" and mediation within "two to three weeks," ultimately failed to materialize. This lack of resolution has led to a proliferation of legal complications, with over 20 collateral cases now being pursued in the High Court. These cases enforce the very rulings that the ULS is appealing, creating a paradoxical situation where the society is simultaneously fighting to overturn decisions while being compelled to comply with them. Moreover, the ULS Council faces threats of contempt citations should it proceed with calling a general meeting without the presence of the Attorney General and Solicitor General, further exacerbating the operational challenges and internal strife within the legal profession. The unresolved appeals and the effective incapacitation of the ULS leadership create significant legal uncertainty and pose a critical threat to the rule of law, potentially affecting case outcomes and professional governance.

Lawyers and compliance officers in Uganda must monitor the ongoing judicial embargo on Uganda Law Society cases, as it directly impacts judicial independence, the integrity of judicial appointments, and the operational capacity of the Bar. The unresolved appeals and the effective incapacitation of the ULS leadership create significant legal uncertainty and pose a critical threat to the rule of law, potentially affecting case outcomes and professional governance.

Source: Original reporting via symposium remarks