ULS Calls for Independent Control over Advocates Discipline

Kampala– The Uganda Law Society (ULS) has intensified its call for independent control over the discipline of advocates, arguing that the Law Council’s continued oversight undermines professional independence, delays justice, and weakens public confidence in the legal profession.

The position was presented by ULS Vice President Asiimwe Anthony, on behalf of President Isaac Ssemakadde, SC, during a Non-Residential Workshop for the Law Council’s Disciplinary Committee held on December 16, 2025 at Mestil Hotel in Kampala

Speaking to members of the Law Council, Asiimwe made it clear that the legal profession was offended by external control of its internal affairs of its discipline and other standards.

“Given the international framework as well as case studies from other jurisdictions, there is need to expand the mandate of the Society to oversee disciplinary processes. This will enhance professional independence, improve efficiency, strengthen due process, and restore confidence in the regulation of legal practice in Uganda,” he said.

He emphasized that discipline is inseparable from independence. According to ULS, lawyers cannot effectively uphold the rule of law if they lack autonomy over professional conduct.

In his presentation titled “Disciplinary Processes: The Perspectives of the ULS,” Asiimwe acknowledged that regulating advocates’ conduct is central to maintaining public trust in the justice system. However, he argued that the current framework has failed. Views collected from advocates across the country, following a Law Council request dated December 5, revealed “deep dissatisfaction” with how disciplinary matters are handled.

One of the most persistent complaints raised was delay. Advocates reported that disciplinary cases often take years to conclude, leaving them in prolonged uncertainty.

These delays cause reputational damage, emotional strain, and professional instability,” Asiimwe said, adding that such practices “offend the right to a timely hearing” and weaken confidence in the system.

Concerns over fairness were also widely expressed. Many advocates believe proceedings are conducted in an atmosphere biased against lawyers and tilted in favour of complainants. Some reported being pressured into consent settlements simply to escape lengthy and unpredictable processes. “There is a pre-conceived inclination against advocates,” Asiimwe told the workshop, noting that this undermines confidence in disciplinary outcomes.

ULS noted that dissatisfaction extends beyond lawyers to the public. Complainants often feel that decisions by the Law Council are neither transparent nor satisfactory.

The current structure of the Law Council cannot adequately address these issues,” Asiimwe argued, “unless the legal profession is granted independence to manage the professional conduct of its own members.”

The Society also highlighted what it described as a structural contradiction in the law. While the Uganda Law Society Act mandates ULS to “maintain and improve the standards of conduct of the legal profession,” it gives the Society no disciplinary authority.

“How can the Society be responsible for standards when it has no control of the disciplinary machinery?” VP Asiimwe asked. He said this disconnect prevents ULS from fully executing its statutory mandate.

Despite lacking disciplinary powers, ULS remains the first point of contact for public complaints against advocates. The Society regularly receives grievances from clients, companies, and even regional Bar associations. Asiimwe cited the Martha Karua incident as an example of public expectation that ULS should be the primary accountability body for lawyers.

ULS further criticised the narrow scope of the Law Council’s mandate, which excludes issues such as exploitative law firm employment practices and failure to pay staff. “These matters directly affect professionalism and ethics, yet they fall outside the Law Council’s reach,” Asiimwe said.

As a solution, ULS proposed the establishment of a fully independent Bar with authority over its own disciplinary processes in accordance with Radical New Bar Vision 2060.

Asiimwe described the Advocates Act of 1970 as “outdated” and inconsistent with modern legal practice, citing case studies from Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Nigeria and India, and international standards—namely the 1990 UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers and IBA Standards for Independence of the Legal Profession—that require lawyer discipline to be handled by profession-led bodies.

“Only then,” he concluded, “will we strengthen professional independence, restore public confidence, and uphold the rule of law in Uganda.”

Source: Uganda Law Society