Kenyan Lawyers Condemn Martha Karua's Deportation From Uganda

The recent denial of entry and subsequent deportation of Kenyan Senior Counsel Martha Karua from Uganda has ignited strong condemnation from the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) and the East African Law Society (EALS). Karua, who was travelling to observe legal proceedings and participate in a legal fraternity event, was declared "persona non grata" by Ugandan authorities without clear justification. This incident raises critical questions regarding the adherence to East African Community (EAC) protocols on the free movement of persons and services, particularly for legal professionals, and underscores the persistent challenges to regional integration and the independence of the legal profession within the Partner States. The legal community views this action as a direct affront to the principles of justice and the rule of law enshrined in the EAC Treaty.

The East African Community (EAC) prides itself on fostering regional integration, with a cornerstone being the free movement of persons and services among its Partner States. However, this foundational principle was recently tested when Kenyan Senior Counsel Martha Karua was denied entry into Uganda and subsequently deported. Karua, a prominent human rights advocate and lead lawyer for Ugandan opposition politician Dr. Kizza Besigye, had travelled to Kampala to observe bail proceedings for a colleague, Erias Lukwago, and to attend the Uganda Law Society's 70th-anniversary celebrations. Ugandan authorities declared her "persona non grata," forcing her immediate return to Kenya.

This abrupt action has drawn widespread condemnation from the Law Society of Kenya (LSK) and the East African Law Society (EALS), who view it as a grave threat to the independence of the legal profession and a blatant disregard for regional integration commitments. The incident highlights the precarious position of legal practitioners operating across EAC borders, especially when involved in politically sensitive cases, and calls into question the practical enforceability of regional agreements against national immigration prerogatives. This article examines the legal implications of Karua's deportation within the context of EAC law and its impact on the regional legal fraternity.

The East African Community was established with the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, which came into force in 2000, aiming to deepen economic, political, social, and cultural integration among its member states. A key pillar of this integration is the Common Market Protocol (CMP), signed in 2009 and effective from July 1, 2010. The CMP explicitly guarantees the free movement of goods, persons, labour, services, and capital, along with the rights of establishment and residence for nationals of Partner States within the Community. These provisions are crucial for professionals, including lawyers, seeking to offer their services across the region.

Specifically, Article 104 of the EAC Treaty and Articles 7 and 10 of the Common Market Protocol underscore the commitment to the free movement of persons and workers. Furthermore, Article 11 of the CMP addresses the harmonization and mutual recognition of academic and professional qualifications, aiming to facilitate the cross-border practice of professions like law. While a Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) for Advocates in East Africa was drafted and signed in 2017, its full implementation and review by Attorney-Generals remain ongoing. Despite these regional commitments, national immigration laws, such as Uganda's Citizenship and Immigration Control Act (Cap. 66), retain powers to deny entry or deport individuals, often citing grounds of public policy, public security, or public health, as permitted under the CMP, albeit with a requirement for notification to other Partner States.

The deportation of Senior Counsel Martha Karua from Uganda, declared "persona non grata" without detailed explanation, directly challenges the spirit and letter of the East African Community's foundational legal instruments. The EAC Treaty, particularly Articles 6(d) and 7(2), mandates adherence to principles of good governance, democracy, and the rule of law, which include the right to legal representation and access to justice. The denial of entry to a lawyer engaged in a high-profile case, especially when she had previously been granted a temporary practising certificate to represent Dr. Besigye, raises serious concerns about interference with the administration of justice and the independence of the bar.

The Common Market Protocol's provisions on the free movement of persons and services are not absolute and allow for limitations on grounds of public policy, public security, or public health. However, such limitations must be justified and, crucially, the Partner State imposing them is obligated to notify other Partner States. In Karua's case, the lack of a clear, publicly stated reason beyond "persona non grata" and the absence of immediate notification to Kenya or the EAC organs suggest a potential breach of these procedural requirements. This echoes the precedent set in *Samuel Mukira Mohochi v. Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda*, where the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) found Uganda in violation for denying a Kenyan lawyer entry without providing reasons or notifying other Partner States. The EACJ's jurisprudence in *Mohochi* affirmed that the right to free movement of persons is a "Treaty-guaranteed right" with direct effect, and that arbitrary denial of entry without due process or notification is unlawful.

The East African Law Society (EALS) has indicated its intention to challenge Uganda's decision before the EACJ, a move that could further clarify the scope and limitations of free movement rights for legal professionals within the Community. Such litigation is vital for strengthening the EAC's legal framework and ensuring that national immigration powers are exercised in a manner consistent with regional commitments. The incident also highlights the ongoing disparity in the implementation of the Common Market Protocol, particularly concerning the full liberalization of legal services, despite the existence of a Mutual Recognition Agreement for Advocates. The selective application of national laws over regional protocols undermines the very essence of a common market and poses significant risks to lawyers undertaking cross-border work, particularly in politically sensitive contexts.

The deportation of Senior Counsel Martha Karua from Uganda represents a significant setback for the aspirations of regional integration and the protection of the legal profession's independence within the East African Community. It underscores the persistent tension between national sovereignty and the commitments made under regional treaties, particularly when political considerations intersect with legal practice. The strong condemnation from the Law Society of Kenya and the East African Law Society signals a collective resolve within the legal fraternity to uphold the principles of the EAC Treaty and the Common Market Protocol.

Practitioners engaging in cross-border legal work within the EAC must remain acutely aware of the potential for arbitrary restrictions, especially in cases with political undertones. This incident serves as a stark reminder that while regional instruments guarantee rights, their enforcement can be challenging. Lawyers should closely monitor the impending legal challenge by the East African Law Society before the EACJ, as its outcome will be crucial in clarifying the rights and protections afforded to legal professionals across the Partner States. Continued advocacy for the full implementation of Mutual Recognition Agreements and adherence to due process in immigration matters remains paramount to fostering a truly integrated and just East African legal landscape.