Activist Anthony Natif has pushed back against Uganda Law Society (ULS) President Isaac Ssemakadde, accusing him of misreading the law in his criticism of lawyer Elison Karuhanga over his silence on the alleged abduction of Erias Lukwago.
In a statement on Monday, July 13, Natif defended Karuhanga’s decision not to speak publicly, arguing that silence is protected under the Constitution and cannot be interpreted as support for state actions.
“Is the Uganda Law Society looking to interpret Mr Elison Karuhanga’s constitutionally protected right to withhold speech as consent to every perceived governance excesses of the state?” Natif posed.
The remarks come days after Ssemakadde accused Karuhanga of “complicity through silence” following Lukwago’s reported seizure by operatives linked to the Uganda People's Defence Forces (UPDF).
Natif rejected that position, warning that equating silence with guilt undermines legal principles.
“Is silence now an admission of collective guilt?” he asked. “Even the much maligned Justice Baguma failed to agree with this… when Dr Kizza Besigye chose silence… the Learned Trial Judge entered a ‘not guilty’ plea.”
He also took issue with the ULS’s “Radical New Bar” stance, saying it contradicts its own ideological claims.
“Why would the same Radical New Bar then claim they’re champions of decolonization while relying on ‘qui tacet consentire videtur’ — that silence means consent?” he said.
Natif further criticised Ssemakadde’s reliance on Karuhanga’s opinion piece published in New Vision, arguing it had been misinterpreted.
“A careful reading of that piece simply reflects the historical position of the Law Society in matters politics,” he stated. “It has somehow been read as a ringing endorsement of the status quo.”
He maintained that the ULS, as a statutory body, cannot compel members to adopt political positions, citing constitutional protections on freedom of expression.
“Would the same society… compel its members to associate with political speech they might not agree with, when Article 29… affords them no such handcuffs?” Natif said.
The activist warned that pushing the Law Society into partisan politics risks eroding its credibility and mandate.
“The risk in turning what should be a firm, nonpartisan professional body into a vanguard of revolutionary politics is clear,” he said.