KAMPALA, Uganda — In a dramatic break from its long-standing tradition of political neutrality, the Uganda Law Society (ULS) has formally entered the country’s electoral arena, issuing an unprecedented endorsement of opposition candidates ahead of the January 2026 general elections, a move already reshaping Uganda’s political landscape.
On December 21, 2025, ULS President Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde signed Executive Order No. 6 of 2025, a sweeping directive that openly aligns the nation’s largest professional legal body with selected opposition figures, citing what the society describes as a profound collapse of constitutional governance.
The end of institutional neutrality
In the order, Ssemakadde framed the decision as a matter of professional duty and national survival, arguing that Uganda has entered a phase of “extraordinary circumstances” where neutrality no longer equates to professionalism — but complicity.
“Silence in the face of this systemic assault on constitutionalism, human rights, and professional integrity would betray the core mandate of the Uganda Law Society,” Ssemakadde declared.
In conditions of state capture, neutrality is no longer a virtue.”
The statement marks the first time in ULS history that the society has formally endorsed political candidates.
A scathing indictment of state institutions
The executive order offers one of the most severe institutional critiques of President Yoweri Museveni’s government to date. It accuses the state of deepening authoritarianism through:
- Excessive militarization of civilian governance
- Entrenched corruption and political impunity
- Systematic erosion of judicial independence
Of particular concern is the judiciary, which ULS says has been transformed into a political instrument.
“The judiciary has been deliberately undermined through coercion, manipulated rulings, rigged appointments, and clandestine postings,” the order states, describing it as “a rubber stamp of militarism and political repression.”
The document further references past public admissions by President Museveni regarding the existence of covert detention facilities — known locally as “the fridge” — alongside ongoing reports of abductions, torture, and extrajudicial killings of government critics.
The endorsements: A blueprint for political change
Breaking with professional precedent, the ULS endorsed Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu (Bobi Wine) as its preferred presidential candidate for 2026.
It also backed Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago for re-election and Dr. Anthony Obuku Ekwaro for the Oyam South parliamentary seat.
The endorsement extends broadly to:
- All candidates from National Unity Platform (NUP) and People’s Front for Freedom (PFF)
- Lawyers and law students within ULS contesting for elective office nationwide
According to the order, these candidates represent “the most credible force for restoring constitutional order, economic justice, youth empowerment, accountable governance, and institutional independence.”
Mobilizing the legal fraternity
The ULS is now mobilizing its national membership in what it calls a “total political reset,” advocating for:
- Demilitarization of civilian governance
- An end to politically motivated prosecutions
- Restoration of judicial independence
In a striking operational directive, the society urged voters to remain physically present at polling stations during voting and counting.
“Remain within 20 meters of polling stations to observe the entire process,” the order instructs.
Also Read: ‘Vote and go home’: Gen Muhoozi warns ahead of 2026 elections
A defining moment for Uganda’s democracy
Ssemakadde concluded with a declaration that the legal profession would no longer remain a bystander in what it describes as Uganda’s democratic decline.
“The legal profession will no longer stand idle while the rule of law is extinguished,” he said.
“The 2026 elections present the moment to reclaim our nation and restore professional dignity,” Ssemakadde added.
With less than three weeks to polling day, the ULS intervention has transformed Uganda’s election into a defining institutional confrontation between the state and one of its most influential professional bodies.
