![NO ONE HAS THE POWER TO FIRE HIM! Ex-Omuhikirwa [Who Fought M7 in 2016] Dares Tooro Clan Leaders Over Rwomiire Sacking, Says Only King Oyo Could Fire Him](https://mulengeranews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Steven-Kaliba-Ateenyi-75x75.jpg)
By Ben Musanje
The East African legal profession has mounted a unified defence of Ugandan advocate Caleb Alaka following public debate over his representation of Speaker of Parliament Anita Annet Among in an ongoing corruption-related investigation, with the East Africa Law Society (EALS) and the Uganda Law Society (ULS) issuing a joint statement strongly reaffirming the independence of the legal profession and the right to legal representation.
The intervention follows public remarks allegedly attributed to Uganda’s Chief of Defence Forces, Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, which were widely interpreted as criticism of Alaka’s professional engagement in the politically sensitive matter. While no formal disciplinary action has been taken against the lawyer, the comments triggered concern within the legal fraternity about the safety of advocates and the boundaries of public commentary on ongoing investigations.
The joint statement was issued in Arusha, Tanzania, and signed by leaders of bar associations across the region. It was spearheaded by Ramadhan Abubakar, President of the East Africa Law Society; Charles Kanjama, Senior Counsel and President of the Law Society of Kenya; Isaac Ssemakadde, President of the Uganda Law Society; Boniface Mwabukusi, President of the Tanganyika Law Society; Moise Nkundabarashi, President of the Rwanda Bar Association; Patrick Didier Nukuri, President of the Burundi Bar Association; Joseph Shaaban, President of the Zanzibar Law Society; Arop Malueth, President of the South Sudan Bar Association; and Tesfaye Derese, President of the Ethiopian Federal Advocates Association.
The legal bodies said they were not addressing the merits of any investigation but were compelled to restate fundamental constitutional and international principles governing fair hearing rights, access to justice, and the independence of advocates. They emphasized that legal representation cannot be conditioned on public approval of a client or the nature of allegations faced.
The statement anchored its position in Uganda’s Constitution, particularly Article 28, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing, and Article 44(c), which makes that right non-derogable. It also cited Article 20(2), which binds all state organs to respect and uphold fundamental rights, and Article 221, which requires security institutions to act within constitutional limits. According to the bar associations, these provisions collectively ensure that every accused person is entitled to counsel of their choice and that lawyers must be free to perform their duties without intimidation or stigma.
The legal fraternity stressed that an advocate does not become associated with the alleged conduct of a client by virtue of professional instruction. They warned that any attempt to link lawyers to their clients’ causes risks undermining the justice system by discouraging representation in sensitive or high-profile cases, particularly those involving powerful political figures or corruption allegations. The Uganda Law Society aligned itself fully with this position, warning that such pressures could have a chilling effect on access to justice and weaken public confidence in the courts.
The statement further noted that the independence of the legal profession is most tested in politically charged matters, where public emotion and institutional interests often converge. It argued that safeguarding lawyers in such circumstances is essential to ensuring that constitutional guarantees remain meaningful in practice rather than theoretical in nature.
Beyond Uganda’s constitutional framework, the joint statement referenced the Treaty establishing the East African Community, which obliges member states to uphold the rule of law, democracy, and human rights. It also cited the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the African Commission’s Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa, which explicitly prohibit identifying lawyers with their clients and guarantee access to legal counsel. The United Nations Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers were also invoked, reinforcing global standards that require governments to ensure lawyers can perform their duties free from intimidation or interference.
The bar associations called on Ugandan authorities, including senior figures within the security and governance sectors, to exercise restraint in public communication relating to ongoing investigations. They warned that statements perceived as targeting legal practitioners could undermine judicial independence and distort public understanding of due process. They further urged all state organs to comply fully with constitutional obligations requiring respect for human rights and adherence to lawful procedure.
The Uganda Law Society reiterated that disputes under investigation must be resolved through established judicial mechanisms rather than public commentary or institutional influence. It emphasized that protecting the independence of the legal profession is not only a professional concern but a constitutional necessity that safeguards the integrity of the justice system as a whole.
The regional bar associations, including those from Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, Zanzibar, South Sudan, and Ethiopia, collectively endorsed the statement, signaling a rare unified stance across East Africa’s legal community. They warned that weakening protections for advocates risks undermining the rule of law across the region and eroding public trust in judicial institutions.
The joint intervention by EALS and ULS marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over the role of lawyers in politically sensitive and high-profile corruption investigations in Uganda. By defending Caleb Alaka’s right to represent his client without intimidation or stigma, the regional and national legal bodies reaffirmed a central constitutional principle: that access to legal representation is absolute, and the independence of the legal profession is essential to the administration of justice, regardless of the profile or political sensitivity of any case.(For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
