ULS Boycotts Judiciary’s Bar-Bench Meeting, Demands Action Over Lukwago’s Alleged Abduction

By Ben Musanje 

The Uganda Law Society (ULS) has boycotted a Bar-Bench meeting convened by the Judiciary, citing the alleged abduction and detention of advocate Erias Lukwago and accusing judicial authorities of remaining silent in the face of what it described as harassment and intimidation of a legal practitioner.

In a letter dated June 16, 2026, addressed to the Chief Registrar, the ULS Executive Council announced that it would not attend the meeting that had been scheduled for the same day at the Supreme Court Building in Kampala.

The Bar-Bench meeting, which brings together representatives of the Judiciary and the legal profession to discuss matters affecting the administration of justice, had been convened following an invitation issued on June 4.

However, ULS Vice President Anthony Asiimwe said the society was preoccupied with efforts to establish the whereabouts and secure the release of the former Kampala Lord Mayor, whom the lawyers’ body said had been arrested from his home on June 15 by members of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF).

According to the letter, Lukwago is lead counsel in an ongoing treason trial against Dr Kiiza Besigye and Hajji Obeid Lutale, and his reported arrest had triggered concerns within the legal fraternity about the safety and independence of advocates involved in sensitive cases.

Asiimwe stated that the Uganda Law Society was fully engaged in what he described as an urgent mission to locate and secure the release of their colleague, a situation that had made it impossible for the Executive Council to attend the meeting.

The lawyers’ body also revealed that it was reviewing and strengthening security measures for Lukwago’s legal team, including foreign counsel and independent trial observers associated with the case.

ULS criticized what it termed the Judiciary’s silence regarding the incident, arguing that the institution has a constitutional obligation to safeguard lawyers, litigants and judicial proceedings from interference.

In the letter, the society expressed concern that the Judiciary had not publicly responded to what it viewed as harassment, intimidation and obstruction of an officer of the court. It argued that such silence was unacceptable given the Judiciary’s constitutional mandate to protect the administration of justice.

The society cited Article 128(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees judicial independence, and called on judicial leaders to take a more active role in defending the integrity of court processes and protecting the right to a fair trial.

As a result, ULS said it had resolved to suspend participation in the Bar-Bench meeting and similar engagements until it was satisfied that those convening the meetings had demonstrated commitment to constitutional principles, particularly the protection of lawyers’ independence and fair trial rights.

The society also called upon the Chief Justice and the Attorney General to intervene and address the matter.

Despite the boycott, ULS reaffirmed its commitment to the rule of law and constructive engagement with the Judiciary once its concerns regarding the safety and independence of lawyers are adequately addressed.