Martha Karua, a senior legal counsel and former Kenyan Justice Minister defending opposition leader Kizza Besigye, was denied entry to Uganda at Entebbe International Airport on 22 June 2026. Immigration officials detained her on arrival, specifically preventing her from attending a scheduled court hearing in Besigye's case, according to Yahoo News Canada.

The blockade appeared deliberately timed. Karua had travelled to Uganda specifically for the court proceedings, and her detention meant she could not appear on the day a ruling was due. Besigye's legal team responded by walking out of the courtroom in protest, per 933 KFM, refusing to participate in a hearing without their lead counsel — an outcome achieved through immigration action rather than any court order.

Kizza Besigye is a four-time presidential candidate and Uganda's most prominent long-standing opposition figure against President Yoweri Museveni. His detention and prosecution have drawn scrutiny from regional civil rights groups and international human rights organizations. While available sources did not provide full details of the specific charges or the content of the ruling, the case has moved through Uganda's courts amid sustained defence complaints about fair trial procedure.

The response across the border was swift. Kenya's Law Society threatened to bar Ugandan lawyers from practising in Kenyan courts in direct retaliation for Karua's exclusion, according to Yahoo News Canada. This is a meaningful threat. Kenya and Uganda are both members of the East African Community, a regional bloc whose legal framework allows lawyers to practise across member states — a reciprocal arrangement that depends on mutual access. If Kenya formally restricted Ugandan advocates from its courts, any case currently defended by Ugandan counsel in Kenya would face immediate disruption, and it would damage years of effort to align legal rules across the community.

A question will shape how seriously Uganda responds: whether Kenya's Law Society has the institutional power to impose such a ban on its own, or whether it would need approval from Kenya's Advocates Act or law society legislation. As a professional body rather than a government, the Law Society has real leverage but not unlimited authority.

This tactic sits within a recognizable pattern in East Africa. Blocking foreign defence counsel at a moment designed to disrupt a specific proceeding sidesteps the courts entirely — immigration authority operates outside judicial oversight, and no judge or bar association can order an immigration officer to admit a foreign national. When the timing aligns this precisely with court proceedings, intent becomes difficult to deny. Uganda has not publicly explained the basis for Karua's exclusion.

For Karua, this is not unfamiliar terrain. She built her profile in Kenya by taking on legally sensitive political cases and challenging government action in court. Her role in Besigye's defence placed her between two governments — one whose judiciary she once served, another whose conduct she was now contesting.

What happens next depends on whether Kenya's government treats the Law Society's statement as a formal diplomatic opening or allows it to remain a professional matter that Nairobi keeps at distance. If the Kenyan government escalates it into a bilateral issue, both countries face pressure — they share infrastructure, trade, and institutional commitments within the East African Community that make prolonged confrontation costly. If it stays within the bar association realm, Uganda can weather the pressure more easily.

Regardless, the walkout by Besigye's legal team means his court proceedings on 22 June unfolded without defence participation. Any ruling issued that day carries that context.