Deported Kenyan lawyer Karua sues Uganda Army Chief Muhoozi

Kenyan Senior Counsel Martha Karua has initiated legal proceedings in the High Court of Uganda against General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the Chief of Defence Forces, and the Attorney General, challenging her recent deportation from Uganda. Karua, who was denied entry on June 22, 2026, despite holding a Special Practising Certificate from the Uganda Law Council, alleges that her classification as a “prohibited immigrant” and “persona non grata” under the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act is unlawful. Her lawsuit contends that General Kainerugaba’s public admission of personally ordering her deportation constitutes an abuse of power, violating Article 208 of the Ugandan Constitution which subordinates the military to civilian authority. The case further argues that her deportation infringes upon the constitutional rights of her clients, Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajj Obeid Lutale, to legal representation and a fair hearing, raising significant questions about the rule of law, judicial independence, and the free movement of professionals within the East African Community.

A significant legal and diplomatic challenge has emerged in Uganda following the deportation of prominent Kenyan Senior Counsel Martha Karua. On June 22, 2026, Karua, a former Kenyan Justice Minister and lead counsel for Ugandan opposition figures Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajj Obeid Lutale, was denied entry into Uganda at Entebbe International Airport and subsequently deported. This incident has swiftly escalated into a High Court battle, with Karua filing a lawsuit against Uganda’s Chief of Defence Forces (CDF), General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, and the Attorney General.

Karua's legal action is not merely a personal grievance but a critical test of Uganda's adherence to its own constitutional principles, immigration laws, and commitments under the East African Community (EAC) treaty. The core of her argument rests on the alleged illegality of her deportation, particularly in light of General Kainerugaba's public admission of personal involvement, and the profound implications for the right to legal representation and a fair trial for her clients. This article delves into the statutory and constitutional framework governing immigration and military authority in Uganda, analyzing the legal grounds of Karua's challenge and its broader ramifications for legal practice and regional integration.

Uganda's immigration framework is primarily governed by the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act, Cap. 66, which outlines the conditions for entry, stay, and deportation of foreign nationals. The Act specifies categories of persons who may be deemed "prohibited immigrants" and details the procedures for denying entry or effecting deportation. Crucially, the Act does not explicitly list "persona non grata" as a ground for classifying an individual as a prohibited immigrant. Foreign nationals seeking to practice a profession in Uganda, such as law, are typically required to obtain specific authorization, which Karua reportedly possessed through a Special Practising Certificate issued by the Uganda Law Council.

Beyond immigration statutes, the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, establishes fundamental rights and principles, including the right to a fair hearing (Article 28) and the subordination of the Uganda People's Defence Forces (UPDF) to civilian authority (Article 208). These constitutional provisions are central to Karua's challenge, as her lawsuit questions the legal basis of her deportation and the authority exercised by a military official in a matter typically falling under civilian immigration control. The context of her visit, to represent opposition politicians facing treason charges, further highlights the intersection of immigration law with political rights and judicial independence in Uganda.

Martha Karua's lawsuit hinges on several critical legal arguments challenging the legality and constitutionality of her deportation. Firstly, she contends that her classification as "persona non grata" is not a recognized ground for denying entry under the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act. The Act provides specific criteria for declaring an individual a prohibited immigrant, and the use of a non-statutory designation raises questions about the procedural fairness and legality of the decision. Furthermore, Karua asserts that she was deported without being provided with clear reasons or an opportunity to challenge the decision, violating principles of natural justice and due process.

Secondly, the public admission by General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the Chief of Defence Forces, that he personally ordered Karua's deportation is a central pillar of her case. Karua argues that this statement amounts to an admission of an abuse of power, as Article 208 of the Constitution explicitly states that the UPDF is subordinate to civilian authority. The Chief of Defence Forces, a military officer, has no constitutional or statutory mandate to direct immigration decisions, which fall under the purview of the Directorate of Citizenship and Immigration Control, a civilian body. This argument seeks to delineate the boundaries of military authority and uphold the principle of civilian supremacy.

Thirdly, Karua's deportation has significant implications for the constitutional rights of her clients, Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajj Obeid Lutale. She argues that her exclusion from Uganda has deprived them of legal representation of their choice, thereby jeopardizing their constitutional right to a fair trial. This aspect of the case underscores the importance of an independent legal profession and the right of accused persons to counsel without undue interference. The alleged confiscation of her mobile phones by immigration officials, which Karua feared could compromise confidential lawyer-client communications, further highlights concerns about the integrity of the legal process.

Finally, Karua's status as an East African Community citizen, traveling on a valid East African passport and possessing authorization to practice law in Uganda, brings into focus the principles of free movement of persons and services within the EAC. Her experience, coupled with similar incidents involving other lawyers in the region, raises broader concerns about the shrinking civic space and the weaponization of immigration laws against legal professionals and political activists across East Africa. The lawsuit, therefore, serves as a crucial test for regional integration principles and the protection of human rights beyond national borders.

The lawsuit filed by Martha Karua against General Muhoozi Kainerugaba and the Attorney General in the Ugandan High Court represents a pivotal moment for the rule of law and human rights in Uganda and the wider East African region. For legal practitioners, this case highlights the critical importance of upholding constitutional principles, particularly the separation of powers and the subordination of military to civilian authority. It also underscores the necessity of clear, statutorily defined grounds for immigration decisions and the protection of due process rights for all individuals, including foreign nationals.

Practitioners should closely monitor the High Court's deliberations and judgment, as the outcome will have significant implications for the interpretation of the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act, the scope of military authority, and the constitutional right to a fair trial. Furthermore, the case serves as a reminder of the challenges faced by legal professionals operating across borders within the East African Community and the ongoing struggle to ensure the independence of the legal profession. The resolution of this matter will undoubtedly shape future discourse on judicial independence, political freedoms, and regional integration in East Africa.