Kampala, Uganda: The increasingly public rift between exiled Uganda Law Society (ULS) President Isaac Ssemakadde, S.C., and senior advocate Elison Karuhanga has deepened after the latter issued a lengthy rebuttal defending his record and belief in an independent Uganda Law Society while accusing Ssemakadde of turning a professional institution into a vehicle for personal and political battles.
Karuhanga’s response came just hours after DailyExpress published an article on Ssemakadde’s open letter titled “Silence of ‘The Lawyer’s Lawyer’ Screams Loud”, in which he accused the senior lawyer of remaining silent following the arrest of veteran opposition lawyer Erias Lukwago, and his commitment to defending the rule of law.
In the widely published open letter, Ssemakadde also announced he had disassociated himself from Karuhanga while declaring that his earlier attempts to build bridges between the Radical New Bar (RNB) and more moderate members of the profession had failed.
But responding to the outspoken legal rebel, Karuhanga, in his article titled “The Bar Belongs to Us All,” said he had initially intended to ignore the attack but decided to respond because the issues raised went beyond a personal disagreement.
“It raises fundamental questions about the future of the Uganda Law Society, the meaning of leadership within our profession, the duty we owe one another as advocates, and whether the Bar should remain an independent professional institution or become a political movement,” Karuhanga wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
A relationship once built on cooperation
The exchange marks a dramatic deterioration in what was once a cooperative relationship between the two lawyers.
Following Ssemakadde’s election as Uganda Law Society president in September 2025, Karuhanga says he publicly defended the legitimacy of the electoral outcome despite openly disagreeing with Ssemakadde’s confrontational style and rhetoric.
The senior advocate also supported Ssemakadde during legal challenges seeking his removal from office, arguing that leaders elected by advocates should primarily be held accountable by the profession itself rather than through court action.
Even Ssemakadde had acknowledged in his earlier letter that he and Karuhanga worked closely during the formative stages of the Radical New Bar before relations deteriorated over disagreements about the political direction of the Uganda Law Society and Karuhanga’s advocacy for what he termed an institutionally independent Bar.
However, Karuhanga rejected suggestions that he had abandoned the profession, saying his loyalty had never been to individual leaders but to the Uganda Law Society as an institution. He noted that throughout his legal career, he had served under every Uganda Law Society president regardless of personal differences.
“I have never been a servant of personalities. I have always been a servant of the Bar,” he wrote. “I did not support every campaign. But once the profession had spoken, I supported the leader. That is how institutions are strengthened.”
Karuhanga argued that even his support for Ssemakadde after the latter’s election stemmed from his desire to protect the legitimacy of the office rather than endorse Ssemakadde’s conduct. “I defended neither Isaac Ssemakadde, the man, nor his excesses. I defended the office he temporarily occupied.”
On silence amid Lukwago’s arrest
A major point of contention remains the arrest of senior advocate Erias Lukwago, which Ssemakadde cited as evidence that Karuhanga had failed to speak out against state excesses.
But Karuhanga rejected the accusation, insisting that the responsibility to represent lawyers lies first with the Uganda Law Society itself. “The question is not, ‘Where was Elison Karuhanga?’ The question is, ‘Where was the Uganda Law Society?'”
He revealed that his legal discussion platform had cancelled one of its scheduled X Spaces to allow the Uganda Law Society to take the lead in addressing Lukwago’s arrest, arguing that institutional leadership should always come before individual advocacy.
Karuhanga added that his team later hosted discussions examining both Lukwago’s arrest and broader issues surrounding Uganda’s criminal justice system.
Debate over neutrality
The sharpest philosophical disagreement between the two senior lawyers centres on the role of the Uganda Law Society in Uganda’s political environment.
While Ssemakadde has continuously argued that there can be no neutrality in what he describes as a militarised state, insisting that the Law Society must openly align itself with the defence of constitutionalism and the rule of law, Karuhanga countered that the ULS boss had misrepresented his earlier writings advocating institutional neutrality.
He maintained that he had never argued for neutrality in the face of injustice but rather for the Uganda Law Society to remain politically independent.
“The Bar must be free to criticise Government, the Opposition, Parliament, the military, the Judiciary and even its own members whenever legal principle demands it,” Karuhanga wrote. “The moment it becomes politically aligned, it ceases to belong equally to all advocates.”
Karuhanga also challenged Ssemakadde’s record as Uganda Law Society president, asking what lasting institutional reforms had been achieved during his tenure. “Leadership is not measured by the number of enemies one makes or the number of headlines one generates. It is measured by the institutions one leaves stronger than one found them.”
He criticised what he described as a style of leadership centred on confrontation, publicity and personal denunciation rather than institutional reform.
The latest exchange comes amid pending elections to choose the Uganda Law Society’s representative on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), a highly influential constitutional body responsible for recommending judicial appointments and overseeing disciplinary matters within the Judiciary.
Ssemakadde’s earlier letter directly questioned Karuhanga’s suitability for the position, arguing that lawyers seeking to represent the profession should demonstrate an unequivocal commitment to defending constitutionalism and publicly condemning human rights violations.
Karuhanga responded by suggesting the criticism was politically motivated, noting that fourteen candidates are contesting the JSC seat, yet only he had been singled out. “If this was truly about principle, the challenge would have been addressed to all fourteen.”
The exchange highlights growing ideological divisions within Uganda’s legal fraternity over the future direction of the Uganda Law Society.
One camp, led by Ssemakadde’s Radical New Bar movement, has advocated a more activist approach to defending constitutional rights and confronting perceived state excesses, while another section of the profession, represented by voices such as Karuhanga, argues that the Society best serves its statutory mandate by remaining institutionally independent while engaging all arms of government without formal political alignment.
If you would like your article/opinion to be published on Uganda’s most authoritative news platform, send your submission on: [email protected]. You can also follow DailyExpress on WhatsApp and on Twitter (X) for realtime updates.
