A section of lawyers under the Uganda Law Society (ULS) has openly rejected an Executive Order issued by the Society’s Governing Council, accusing the leadership of abandoning the long-standing principle of political non-partisanship and undermining the independence of the legal profession.
The lawyers expressed “deep disappointment and outright condemnation” of Executive Order RNB No. 6 of 2025, issued on December 21. The order is criticised for allegedly endorsing a particular presidential candidate and party flag bearers ahead of the 2026 general elections.
The lawyers argue that political neutrality is the bedrock of the Uganda Law Society’s legitimacy and moral authority. They warn that once the Society is perceived as partisan, it risks losing public trust and its ability to represent all citizens fairly, regardless of political affiliation.
“As officers of court, defenders of the rule of law and custodians of constitutionalism, lawyers must remain independent, objective and guided solely by the law,” the statement reads. “Neutrality does not mean silence in the face of injustice, but engagement from a principled, constitutional and evidence-based standpoint—not politics.”
The signatories further accuse the ULS Governing Council of acting without adequate consultation and departing from established custom and tradition in the management of the Society’s affairs. They caution that the Executive Order threatens unity within the legal fraternity, which brings together members drawn from across Uganda’s political spectrum, including the NRM, NUP, FDC, DP, JEEMA and other parties.
According to the lawyers, institutional partisanship could weaken the Society’s ability to speak credibly on matters of justice, governance and the rule of law, while also fueling internal divisions at a time of heightened political activity nationwide.
The statement calls on ULS members and stakeholders to disregard the impugned Executive Order in order to safeguard the Society’s non-partisan character, national cohesion and constitutional principles. The lawyers also reaffirm ULS’ long-standing policy of political neutrality in the conduct of its institutional business.
In a sharp warning to the current leadership, the advocates caution that failure to reverse course could have lasting consequences.
“History will remember this Council,” the statement warns, “as the one that killed the Uganda Law Society,” unless corrective action is taken.
By press time, the ULS Governing Council had not publicly responded to the concerns raised by the dissenting lawyers.
