Uganda Law Society: Judicial Embargo Halts ULS Litigation

• The Uganda Law Society (ULS) and its President, Isaac K. Ssemakadde SC, are facing an escalating conflict with the judiciary, including a judicial embargo on ULS litigation.
• On February 7, 2025, the former Chief Justice declared the ULS and its leadership "out of bounds," denying Ssemakadde a speaking slot at a key event.
• On July 7, 2025, the former Deputy Chief Justice issued an embargo, indefinitely removing ULS cases, including appeals related to quorum, judicial appointments, and Ssemakadde's contempt conviction, from the Court of Appeal cause-list.
• Ssemakadde remains in exile due to an unresolved contempt conviction for "scandalizing the judiciary," which also prevents him from participating in the Law Council.
• The embargo and internal divisions within the Bar, with some members allegedly soliciting the embargo, challenge the ULS's functionality and the independence of the legal profession.

The ongoing judicial embargo and the specific cases it affects have profound implications for the independence of the legal profession in Uganda and the effective functioning of the Uganda Law Society.

The Uganda Law Society (ULS) is currently embroiled in a significant dispute with the country's judiciary, a conflict highlighted by the ongoing absence and legal challenges faced by its President, Isaac K. Ssemakadde SC. During a recent training event, the ULS Vice President, Asiimwe Anthony, addressed members of the Bar, explaining why Ssemakadde, who leads the "Radical New Bar" Governing Council, was unable to attend for the second consecutive year. Ssemakadde is currently living in exile, having been convicted and facing what his leadership describes as persecution.

This escalating tension became publicly apparent on February 7, 2025, when the former Chief Justice, at the annual Opening of the New Law Year, declared the ULS and its current leadership "out of bounds." This declaration was accompanied by the denial of a speaking slot for the ULS President at the seminal Bar-Bench event, despite prior discussions between the ULS and the Chief Justice's office regarding a framework for dialogue on issues affecting their relationship. The situation worsened on July 7, 2025, a date referred to as "Saba Saba Day," when the former Deputy Chief Justice issued a drastic directive. This order imposed what has been termed an "embargo" on all litigation involving the ULS and its current leadership, effectively removing their cases from the Court of Appeal's cause-list indefinitely and placing the society under considerable pressure.

The Vice President further revealed that this judicial embargo was reportedly solicited by certain members of the Bar itself. These individuals, who are now seeking votes in upcoming general meetings, are accused of undermining the ULS leadership by contributing to the directive that has stalled crucial legal proceedings. This internal division within the legal profession adds another layer of complexity to the ongoing Bar-Bench conflict, with the ULS leadership vowing to expose those responsible for what they describe as treachery.

The judicial embargo has directly impacted several critical cases involving the Uganda Law Society and its leadership, effectively halting their progress in the appellate courts. On July 10, 2025, a panel led by Justice Egonda-Ntende was scheduled to hear three significant appeals that were subsequently removed from the cause-list due to the directive. Among these was Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2025, titled ULS v. Mugisha Hashim, commonly known as the "quorum case." This appeal challenges an earlier ruling by then-Judge Musa Ssekaana, which nullified ULS Council meetings, thereby rendering the society dysfunctional and fueling a "tug-of-war" between opposing factions within the Bar. A central issue in this case is the contentious expulsion of the Attorney General and Solicitor General from the ULS Council.

Another crucial matter affected is Civil Appeal No. 99 of 2025, ULS v. Pheona Wall, referred to as the "JSC case." This appeal disputes the method by which ULS nominees are elected to the 7th Judicial Service Commission. The inability to proceed with this case raises questions about who ultimately controls the process of judicial appointments, as the judiciary's actions prevent the ULS from fulfilling what it considers a constitutional duty in a timely manner.

Perhaps the most personally impactful case is Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2025, Ssemakadde v. Mugisha Hashim. This appeal seeks to overturn a contempt conviction against President Ssemakadde for "scandalizing the judiciary." The unresolved nature of this appeal is directly linked to Ssemakadde's continued exile, as the conviction prevents his return. Furthermore, the chairperson's interpretation of the law requires the President's physical presence to sit on the Law Council, meaning Ssemakadde cannot represent his constituents effectively while this appeal remains unheard. Beyond these, two additional matters, including Petition 16 of 2024, which challenges Sections 4 and 9 of the ULS Act and Section 14(1) of the Advocates Act, are currently stalled in the Constitutional Court.

The ongoing judicial embargo and the specific cases it affects have profound implications for the independence of the legal profession in Uganda and the effective functioning of the Uganda Law Society. The inability of President Ssemakadde to return from exile and actively participate in the Law Council due to an unaddressed contempt conviction severely hampers the ULS's leadership capacity and its ability to advocate for its members. This situation underscores a broader challenge to the autonomy of the Bar, particularly concerning its role in critical processes like the nomination of members to the Judicial Service Commission, which directly influences who becomes a judge.

The conflict, described as a "tug-of-war" between rival sections of the Bar, forces members to choose between supporting the "Radical New Bar" agenda, which champions an independent and fearless legal profession, or aligning with what is termed the "pro-establishment" view, which insists on the return of the Attorney General and Solicitor General to the ULS Council before any general meeting can transact business. This internal strife, exacerbated by judicial directives, threatens to paralyze the ULS and undermine its constitutional mandate. The unaddressed legal challenges and the embargo itself raise serious concerns about judicial independence and the rule of law, potentially influencing legal strategy and professional advocacy across the country.

Lawyers and compliance officers in Uganda should be aware of the ongoing and escalating conflict between the Uganda Law Society leadership and the judiciary, including the judicial embargo on ULS litigation. This situation directly impacts the independence of the legal profession, the ULS's ability to represent its members, and could affect the broader administration of justice and judicial appointment processes, potentially influencing legal strategy and professional advocacy.

Source: Original reporting via ULS Vice President's remarks