Uganda: Ssemakadde, Predecessor Oundo Exchange Barbs on X Over Financial Accountability

The leadership rift within the Uganda Law Society (ULS) has escalated into a public feud, with newly elected President Isaac Ssemakadde openly challenging the financial accountability of his predecessor, Bernard Oundo. The disagreement, which has been unfolding on social media platforms like X (formerly known as Twitter), centers on allegations of financial mismanagement and lack of transparency within the ULS, a critical body representing Uganda's legal professionals.

Isaac Ssemakadde, known for his bold and outspoken nature, did not hold back in his criticism of Oundo’s administration, accusing him of failing to provide sufficient details in his financial report and calling for a forensic audit to get to the bottom of the matter. In a pointed exchange, Ssemakadde dismissed Oundo's defence as inadequate, insisting that full financial accountability was necessary for the integrity of the ULS and the trust of its members. He accused his predecessor of not only failing to provide a comprehensive account of ULS finances but also of being evasive on key issues.

The tension between the two leaders reached a climax when Ssemakadde compared Oundo’s report unfavourably to that of his own predecessor, Pheona Wall. Ssemakadde asserted that Oundo’s financial disclosures were lacking in "material particulars" and reiterated his call for a forensic audit, which he said had been supported by many ULS members who wanted to ensure transparency. He indicated that an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) would be convened within two weeks to address these concerns and hold Oundo accountable for any unresolved issues.

In response, Oundo defended his administration’s track record, stating that the financial report had been presented and adopted by ULS members during the Annual General Meeting (AGM). He rejected the idea that the membership had explicitly called for a forensic audit, though he did express his willingness to support such a move, insisting that there was "nothing to hide." Oundo highlighted the regular preparation of annual reports by ULS as part of its tradition, noting that these reports serve as official handover documents for incoming leadership.

Oundo also pointed out that ULS policy required him, as the immediate past president, to serve on the ULS council for six months to assist the new leadership during the transition. However, he stated that despite this requirement, he had not yet been invited to attend any council meetings. Oundo urged the new leadership to focus on delivering its mandate, cautioning against the use of personal grievances to distract from the Society’s core mission. He warned that the ULS should not be used to settle personal scores and encouraged the new leadership to work towards unity and professional progress.

Ssemakadde, however, dismissed Oundo’s claims regarding a six-month transition period, calling them baseless. He attacked Oundo’s tenure as rife with favoritism and insufficient oversight, stating that his administration would take a hardline approach against corruption and mismanagement. Ssemakadde vowed to restore independence within the ULS, promising that his governing council would use all lawful means to expose and eradicate any instances of corruption, misuse of power, or breach of trust.

The rift has quickly become the talk of the legal community in Uganda, with many observing how this leadership struggle could shape the future of the ULS. The public nature of the dispute has added fuel to the controversy, as both Ssemakadde and Oundo have taken to social media to voice their positions. This has attracted the attention of ULS members, legal practitioners, and the wider public, as the unfolding drama hints at deeper divisions within the society.

Ssemakadde’s agenda, dubbed the "Radical New Bar," promises to bring sweeping changes to ULS governance. His administration has signaled its intent to break with past leadership practices and ensure greater transparency and accountability in managing the society’s affairs. By calling for a forensic audit and demanding a stricter approach to financial oversight, Ssemakadde is positioning himself as a reformer who is unafraid to confront the legacy of previous administrations.

The Extraordinary General Meeting, expected to be held in the coming weeks, is likely to be a pivotal moment for the ULS. With financial accountability and leadership integrity at the forefront of the discussions, this meeting could set the tone for the future direction of the society. As Ssemakadde pushes forward with his "Radical New Bar" agenda, it remains to be seen whether his vision for reform will resonate with the broader ULS membership and whether the tensions within the leadership can be resolved constructively.

This leadership clash underscores the broader challenges facing professional bodies like the ULS in maintaining transparency, accountability, and unity among their members. The public feud has raised questions about governance practices within the ULS and has highlighted the importance of clear and transparent financial reporting in fostering trust and confidence among members. As the situation unfolds, the legal community will be closely watching to see how the ULS navigates this period of transition and whether the society can emerge stronger from this internal conflict.