The Ugandan Law Council has denied Hon. Martha Wangari Karua’s application for a temporary practicing certificate to represent Dr. Kizza Besigye and Obeid Lutale in a case before the General Court Martial in Kampala.
The decision, communicated on December 6, 2024, cited multiple procedural and ethical concerns, effectively barring the prominent Kenyan lawyer from leading the defense in the high-profile case.
Karua, a Senior Counsel from Kenya, had applied under Section 13 of Uganda’s Advocates Act to practice temporarily in Uganda. Her application included a practicing certificate from Kenya, confirmation of her standing with the Law Society of Kenya, and letters of request from Erias Lukwago and his firm, Lukwago & Co. Advocates. However, the Law Council identified several issues with her application and subsequent conduct, leading to its rejection.
According to the Council, Karua’s application was incomplete. Key documents such as notarized copies of her practicing certificate, nationality documents, and academic qualifications were missing. Additionally, Erias Lukwago, who invited her, had not submitted a valid practicing certificate as required by law. The Council also flagged Karua’s use of a Kampala Capital City Authority email for correspondence as inconsistent with professional ethics.
The Council further noted that Karua’s role in the case was entangled with political undertones. The Council stated that the case was “deemed controversial” in both Uganda and Kenya, and Karua’s involvement appeared to advance a political agenda rather than a strictly professional one.
Karua’s conduct during her stay in Uganda also came under scrutiny. On December 2, she appeared at the General Court Martial alongside Lukwago, fully robed, despite not yet being admitted to practice in Uganda.
This act was seen as a breach of professional standards. The following day, she joined Lukwago and journalists in an unannounced visit to the Supreme Court, demanding a judgment related to the case.
This visit resulted in a security incident, which the Council described as embarrassing and unprofessional.
The Council emphasized its discretionary authority under the Advocates Act and expressed concern that Karua’s involvement would not bring any unique skills to the case, as over 30 Ugandan advocates were already on the defense team.
The rejection highlights the importance of procedural compliance and professional conduct in cross-border legal practice, as well as the potential challenges posed by cases with political sensitivities.
