The Uganda Law Society (ULS) has strongly condemned what it describes as social media statements attributed to Chief of Defence Forces Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba over advocate Caleb Alaka’s role in representing Speaker Anita Among in ongoing corruption-related investigations.
The Law Society says the remarks, which allegedly warned that lawyers handling corruption cases could face consequences, amount to intimidation of legal practitioners and undermine constitutional protections on legal representation.
In its statement, the ULS said the developments followed a series of online posts attributed to Gen Muhoozi in which he is reported to have criticised the defence team and linked their work to possible punitive action.
One of the posts cited in public debate also referenced the handling of high-value assets, including the proposed auctioning of a luxury vehicle linked to the case.
The society said such communication from a senior military officer risks eroding confidence in the independence of the legal system, especially where ongoing investigations involve high-profile political figures.
Quoting its position, the ULS stated: “The legal profession will continue its duty regardless of intimidation.” It added that no advocate should be threatened or singled out for representing a client in a matter before the courts or investigative agencies.
The society further emphasised that the right to legal representation is constitutionally protected. It noted that Article 28 of the Constitution guarantees every accused person access to a lawyer of their choice, regardless of public sentiment or the seriousness of allegations.
The statement also cited Section 3(c) of the Uganda Law Society Act, which mandates the body to protect lawyers from interference, harassment, or intimidation in the course of their duties. It argued that this obligation becomes more critical in politically sensitive or high-profile cases.
The ULS warned that attempts to associate lawyers with the conduct of their clients distort the role of legal representation and weaken the justice system.
It maintained that advocates operate within strict professional boundaries and are not participants in the allegations they defend.
The society also raised concern over what it termed a growing pattern of pressure on lawyers involved in sensitive political and corruption-related cases.
It pointed to previous incidents involving arrests and confrontations between security agencies and legal practitioners, saying such actions contribute to an environment of fear.
It further referenced earlier institutional warnings on what it described as increasing militarisation of civilian affairs, arguing that such trends risk undermining judicial independence and due process.
In its position on accountability, the ULS noted that senior military officials may bear responsibility for actions taken under their command if abuses are not addressed. It urged all state actors to operate strictly within constitutional limits and respect the separation of powers.
The society also called for direct engagement with military leadership through structured dialogue, saying repeated invitations to discussions had not been taken up. It urged restraint in public communication and respect for legal institutions.
Reaffirming its stance, the ULS said: “The legal profession must never be subjected to threats or intimidation for executing its constitutional duty.” It called on advocates across the country to remain firm in defending the rule of law.