A backlash has been ignited in Uganda after approval was granted for a “temporary arrangement” under which migrants rejected by the United States would be received in the East African nation. The decision has been cast against a backdrop in which nearly two million refugees are already being sheltered inside Uganda, and in which resources, oversight, and the rule of law are being tested.
Under the arrangement, it was announced by Uganda’s foreign ministry that deported foreign migrants who are not granted asylum in the US, but are unwilling or fearful to return to their countries of origin, would be admitted to Uganda. It was further stated that the deal would be conditioned by exclusions: individuals with criminal records and unaccompanied minors would not be accepted, and a preference for deportees from African countries would be applied.
Sharp criticism was voiced over how the arrangement was approved. It was argued by opposition figures that parliamentary scrutiny had been bypassed. “The whole scheme stinks without proper oversight,” it was said by Mathias Mpuuga, until recently the leader of the opposition in Uganda’s national assembly.
Read also: TIME launches TIME Africa to spotlight the continent’s leaders, innovators, and stories
No figures on the expected number of arrivals, nor a timeline for transfers, have been disclosed. It was indicated by the foreign ministry that “detailed modalities” were still being worked out with Washington. A request for further comment was not responded to by the presidential press office.
Diplomatic framing for the deal has been provided by Washington and Kampala. It was noted by the US State Department that a conversation had been held last week between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and President Yoweri Museveni, during which “opportunities to deepen U.S.-Uganda cooperation on migration, reciprocal trade, and commercial ties” were discussed. Uganda has thereby been placed alongside Rwanda, South Sudan, and Eswatini, where similar agreements have been struck.
Implementation has already been complicated by the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national. An effort to remove him to Uganda was halted when a US federal judge prohibited his deportation for several weeks while a claim of possible persecution or torture in Uganda is assessed. Earlier, a wrongful removal to El Salvador had been carried out despite a 2019 court order, before his return to the US to face federal criminal charges. Through this case, the uncertainties of the arrangement, including due-process protections, destination suitability, and the handling of contested removals, have been underscored.
Significant strain on public services and local ecosystems has been cited by critics, given that almost two million refugees, primarily from South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, are already being hosted. Additional arrivals from across the Atlantic are feared to intensify demands on land, water, health and education systems, and livelihoods support that are already stretched by climate shocks and funding shortfalls.
The arrangement is being assessed for its compatibility with principles of burden-sharing, resilience building, and community cohesion. It has been noted by humanitarian practitioners that reception, screening, and integration require predictable financing, robust safeguards against refoulement, and support to host communities whose resources are finite. Without clarity on who would fund reception infrastructure, case adjudication, health and psychosocial services, and long-term livelihoods, the risk of burden-shifting, rather than burden-sharing, has been emphasized.
Questions of constitutionality and oversight have been raised. It has been alleged that parliament was not fully engaged before the arrangement was approved. Broader legal issues have also been surfaced by analysts: how asylum claims would be processed; what legal status, documentation, and mobility would be granted to transferees; whether non-refoulement obligations would be safeguarded; and how monitoring, grievance, and accountability mechanisms would be provided.
Read also: Ethiopia defends mega dam as Africa’s largest Hydropower project nears inauguration
A history of third-country transfers has been invoked. It was reported by Amnesty International in 2018 that 1,749 Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers were moved to Uganda from Israel between 2015 and 2018; those claims were denied by Ugandan authorities at the time. The episode has been recalled as context for present-day concerns about transparency, consent, and the voluntariness of movements arranged by third countries.
Potential political effects have been highlighted as Uganda approaches a general election next year. It was argued by Nicodemus Minde of the Institute for Security Studies that the arrangement “may shield the Ugandan government from critical scrutiny regarding its authoritarian practices.” President Yoweri Museveni, aged 80, has been in power since 1986 and has signaled a plan to seek a new term. Against that backdrop, external agreements have been viewed by some as instruments through which international legitimacy could be reinforced even as domestic dissent is managed.
Outstanding uncertainties remain numerous. It has not been specified how many deportees would be transferred, what nationalities would predominate, which screening criteria would be used, or how long individuals would be expected to remain in Uganda. The division of financial responsibility between Washington and Kampala has not been detailed. Mechanisms for independent monitoring, access to legal counsel, appeal rights, and eventual pathways to local integration or third-country resettlement have not been laid out publicly. The implications for already burdened refugee settlements and host districts, in terms of land use, water access, public health capacity, and social cohesion, have yet to be fully explained.
At stake is a test of whether international mobility challenges can be addressed through arrangements that are rights-respecting, fiscally sustainable, and fair to host communities. Uganda’s longstanding hospitality has been celebrated globally; however, sustainability will be judged by whether adequate financing, transparent oversight, and community-level support are provided, and by whether legal standards are upheld for every transfer case.
For now, the arrangement remains provisional, its contours are still being negotiated, and scrutiny is intensifying. Whether the deal is ultimately perceived as responsible burden-sharing or as burden-shifting will be determined by how these unanswered questions are resolved, and by how Uganda’s resilience is supported rather than strained.
Read also: RwandAir expands fleet with new Boeing Jets to restore reliability
