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 wider debate about constitutionalism, judicial independence, and the protection of legal practitioners 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, arguing that 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, seek to represent him under a temporary practising certificate, and participate in activities marking the Uganda Law Society’s anniversary celebrations.
According to the Law Society of Kenya, immigration officials initially stamped Karua’s passport before later denying her entry and deporting her after declaring her persona non grata.
Ugandan authorities have not publicly provided detailed reasons for the decision.
The deportation came days after another member of Besigye’s legal team, senior advocate Erias Lukwago, was arrested and later presented before a civilian court before being remanded to Luzira Prison. Allegations surrounding his treatment have further intensified concerns among regional legal bodies regarding the operating environment for 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 emphasized that advocate-client privilege and confidentiality remain fundamental 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.”
His remarks echo internationally recognized standards governing the legal profession. The United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers require governments to ensure lawyers can perform their professional duties without intimidation, harassment, or improper interference.
Similarly, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights guarantees the right to a 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 lists the right to a fair hearing among rights that cannot be suspended.
Legal scholars argue that these protections extend beyond litigants to include lawyers whose professional independence is essential to the administration of justice.
Beyond the legal questions, the dispute has exposed tensions between national immigration powers and the broader objectives of East African integration.
Kanjama argued that the East African Community cannot meaningfully pursue political federation while professionals continue to encounter barriers 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 and the East African Common Market Protocol, member states have committed themselves to progressively deepen regional cooperation and facilitate the 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 grounds such as national security or public interest, provided such decisions comply with domestic laws and regional treaty obligations.
Whether Karua’s deportation meets those standards is likely to remain a subject of legal and diplomatic debate.
The Uganda Law Society (ULS) has also condemned the deportation, arguing that it reflects a worrying trend affecting legal practitioners in the region.
ULS Vice President Anthony Asiimwe announced plans for a nationwide lawyers’ 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 collaborate with bar associations across the region to challenge actions perceived as undermining the independence of the legal profession.
The planned industrial action represents 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 recognized 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 commitment to constitutional governance, judicial independence, and regional cooperation.
While governments retain legitimate powers to regulate immigration and safeguard national security, legal experts argue that such powers must 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 represent clients may increasingly become a measure not only of bilateral relations but also of the region’s collective commitment to justice, constitutionalism, and the rule of law.
