A decision meant to raise pharmacists’ pay has instead triggered a legal reality check, one that could reshape how professional bodies set standards in Uganda.
At the centre of the dispute is a directive issued by the Pharmaceutical Society of Uganda (PSU), which sought to introduce a minimum monthly professional fee of Shs 2 million for pharmacists working in pharmacies, hospitals, and clinics.
The move was intended to standardise pay across the sector and improve welfare. But according to a legal opinion from the Solicitor General’s office, the Society may have overstepped its mandate.
In a letter dated April 1, 2026, addressed to the President of the Pharmaceutical Society of Uganda, the Deputy Solicitor General, Charles Ouma, makes the government’s position clear: setting mandatory pay levels is not within the Society’s legal powers.
The opinion follows a petition from the Uganda Pharmacy Owners Association, which had questioned both the legality and implications of the directive. The PSU had earlier resolved that all pharmacists should earn at least Shs 2 million per month and required members to amend their employment contracts accordingly.
It also warned that those accepting lower pay risked suspension and disciplinary action. But the Solicitor General’s office argues that such a directive goes beyond professional regulation and enters the realm of lawmaking.
“The subject matter, i.e., a ‘minimum wage’ (called a ‘standard professional fee’) is neither an activity of the society nor is it a ‘code of conduct’ matter,” the letter states. Instead, it describes the move as “an attempt at legislation,” noting that imposing binding wage requirements is a power reserved for Parliament, not a professional body.
That distinction is more than technical; it has real consequences. Professional organisations like the PSU are empowered to regulate conduct, set ethical standards, and guide practice within their fields.
But they cannot compel employers to pay specific wages, nor can they create obligations that carry the force of law without parliamentary backing. In this case, the legal opinion concludes that the PSU’s resolution is “an overreach, is ultra vires and legally untenable”.
For pharmacists, the ruling introduces a layer of uncertainty. Many had welcomed the proposed minimum wage as a long- overdue step toward fair compensation in a sector where pay can vary widely.
Others, particularly employers, had raised concerns about affordability and enforcement. Now, the question shifts from what should be paid to what can legally be enforced. For the wider public, the issue may seem distant, but its implications are broader than the pharmacy sector alone.
It touches on how professional bodies operate, how labour standards are set, and where the line is drawn between guidance and regulation. If professional associations could independently set binding wage floors, it would fundamentally alter labour relations across multiple sectors, from law to engineering to healthcare.
The Solicitor General’s opinion effectively closes that door, reaffirming that such decisions must pass through formal legislative channels. At the same time, the debate highlights a deeper tension.
On one side is the need to protect workers and ensure fair pay. On the other is the requirement to follow established legal processes. Balancing those two priorities is not always straightforward and, as this case shows, even well- intentioned reforms can run into legal limits.
For now, the PSU’s directive stands on uncertain ground. Whether the Society revises its approach or seeks legislative backing remains to be seen. What is clear is that the conversation around professional pay is far from over. And for many pharmacists across Uganda, the question of fair compensation much like the law itself, remains unresolved.
