The Uganda Law Society (ULS) has asked the leadership of the Uganda Police Force to explain the circumstances under which police officers participated in the eviction of Muwema & Co. Advocates from its Kololo, Kampala offices.
The law firm was forcibly evicted from its offices at Plot 50 Windsor Crescent Road last week following a prolonged rent dispute with the landlord, Downtown Investments.
In a letter dated March 9, 2026, the ULS vice president, Asiimwe Anthony, wrote to the Inspector General of Police, Abbas Byakagaba, raising concerns about the operation that reportedly took place at Plot 50 Windsor Crescent on March 6.
“As the statutory body mandated under the Uganda Law Society Act to represent, protect and assist members of the legal profession in relation to conditions of practice, we write to seek clarification regarding the involvement of officers of the Uganda Police Force in the forceful eviction of M/s Muwema & Co. Advocates from their offices,” Asiimwe wrote.
ULS said the eviction had raised serious questions within the legal fraternity, especially about whether proper court procedures were followed.
The lawyers’ body asked the police chief to explain whether his office authorised the operation and to identify the commanding officer who supervised it.
ULS also asked whether the Directorate of Human Rights and Legal Services within the police force gave any legal opinion before the eviction was conducted.
“We further request clarification as to whether the Directorate of Human Rights and Legal Services within the Uganda Police Force provided any legal opinion or clearance prior to the eviction being carried out,” Asiimwe wrote.
The society demanded to know whether police officers verified the existence of a lawful court warrant before taking part in the operation.
“Please clarify whether the police officers involved verified the existence of a lawful court warrant of eviction or attachment before supporting this operation,” the letter states.
ULS further raised concerns about the handling of confidential information belonging to clients of the law firm.
“Of particular concern is the handling of confidential client files, documents, electronic records, and other sensitive materials. Kindly provide details of the officers who accessed, handled, or removed such materials,” the society wrote.
ULS also questioned the involvement of a private security firm in the eviction.
“Kindly confirm whether M/s A-1 Security Systems Limited was authorised to participate in this operation and whether their involvement complied with the Police (Control of Private Security Organisations) Regulations, 2013,” the letter states.
