The deportation of Kenyan Senior Counsel Martha Karua from Uganda has escalated into a regional legal and diplomatic controversy, with the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) accusing Ugandan authorities of undermining the independence of lawyers, restricting access to justice and weakening the East African Community’s vision of free movement of people and professional services.
What began as an immigration decision at Entebbe International Airport has rapidly evolved into a broader debate about constitutionalism, judicial independence and the protection of lawyers representing politically sensitive clients across East Africa.
Law Society of Kenya President Charles Kanjama described Karua’s deportation as more than an isolated border incident. Instead, he argued, it sends “a chilling signal” to legal practitioners across the region that lawyers may face intimidation simply for representing unpopular clients.
“When lawyers take the oath of office, we undertake to defend the rule of law and the administration of justice without fear or favour,” Kanjama said.
“Every lawyer has a duty to ensure that every client, no matter how unpopular, is able to enjoy their constitutional right of access to justice.”
Karua, a former Kenyan Justice Minister and one of East Africa’s most prominent constitutional lawyers, had travelled to Uganda to observe the bail proceedings involving opposition leader Dr. Kizza Besigye, represent him under a temporary practising certificate and participate in the Uganda Law Society’s anniversary celebrations.
According to the Law Society of Kenya, immigration officials initially stamped her passport before later denying her entry and deporting her after declaring her persona non grata.
Authorities have not publicly provided detailed reasons for the decision. The deportation came only days after another member of Besigye’s legal team, senior advocate Erias Lukwago, was arrested, allegedly abducted and tortured before being presented before a civilian court and remanded to Luzira Prison.
Although Ugandan authorities have not publicly responded to the allegations of torture, the sequence of events has heightened concern among regional legal bodies over what they describe as increasing pressure on lawyers handling politically sensitive cases.
Kanjama warned that lawyers cannot effectively defend constitutional rights if they fear harassment because of the identities of their clients. He emphasised that advocate-client privilege and confidentiality are central pillars of every democratic justice system.
“Every client is entitled to speak freely with their lawyer without fear that privileged communication will be disclosed to third parties,” he said.
“When a lawyer is intimidated because of the client they represent, it undermines not only that individual advocate but the entire administration of justice.”
The comments echo internationally recognised principles governing the legal profession. The United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (1990) require governments to ensure lawyers are able to perform all of their professional functions “without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference.”
Similarly, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which Uganda is a State Party, guarantees access to fair hearing and legal representation.
Uganda’s Constitution, under Article 28, guarantees every person the right to a fair hearing, including legal representation, while Article 44 makes the right to a fair hearing non-derogable.
Legal scholars argue that these protections extend not only to litigants but also to lawyers whose professional independence is essential for justice to function. Beyond the legal questions, the dispute has exposed tensions between national immigration powers and East African integration.
Kanjama argued that the East African Community cannot meaningfully pursue political federation while professionals continue encountering restrictions across partner states.
“We speak about East African integration and eventually political federation,” he said. “But integration begins with ordinary citizens, traders and professionals being able to move freely across our borders.”
Under the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, partner states commit themselves to progressively deepen regional cooperation, while the East African Common Market Protocol provides for the gradual free movement of persons, labour and services.
However, immigration experts note that partner states retain sovereign authority over admission into their territories and may deny entry on national security or public interest grounds, provided such decisions comply with domestic law and applicable treaty obligations.
Whether Karua’s deportation satisfies those standards is likely to remain a matter of legal and diplomatic debate.
The Uganda Law Society (ULS) says the deportation, coupled with Lukwago’s arrest, reflects a worrying trend affecting legal practitioners. ULS Vice President Anthony Asiimwe announced that lawyers would stage a nationwide strike to protest what he described as growing interference with legal practice.
“This is unacceptable,” Asiimwe said. “If we allow this to pass, it will be a major blow to the practice of law across the East African Community.”
He added that the Society would work closely with bar associations throughout the region to challenge actions perceived as undermining the legal profession.
The planned industrial action marks one of the strongest collective responses by Uganda’s legal fraternity in recent years.
Former Kampala Central Member of Parliament Muhammad Nsereko described Karua’s deportation as troubling for Uganda’s international image and questioned whether restricting lawyers strengthens public confidence in the justice system.
“The rule of law is measured not by how we treat those we agree with, but by how we protect the rights of those we disagree with,” Nsereko has previously argued in public commentary on constitutional governance.
Opposition legislators have similarly called for greater transparency regarding the decision, arguing that public confidence requires government to clearly explain actions affecting internationally recognised legal practitioners.
Government officials have yet to provide a comprehensive public explanation beyond the immigration designation reportedly communicated to Karua.
For many observers, the controversy now represents a critical test of Uganda’s constitutional commitment to the rule of law, judicial independence and regional cooperation.
While governments retain legitimate powers to regulate immigration and protect national security, legal experts argue those powers must always be exercised transparently, proportionately and consistently with constitutional guarantees and international obligations.
As Uganda and Kenya continue pursuing closer regional integration under the East African Community, the treatment of lawyers crossing borders to defend clients may increasingly become a measure not only of bilateral relations, but of the region’s collective commitment to justice, constitutionalism and the rule of law-Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
