ENTEBBE, Uganda — Uganda has received another group of rejected asylum seekers from the United States, intensifying debate over a controversial bilateral agreement that allows Washington to transfer certain migrants to the East African nation.
Eight third-country nationals of African origin arrived at Entebbe International Airport on Friday, April 3, 2026, marking the latest transfer under a deal signed between Uganda and the United States in July 2025. The individuals, who are neither Ugandan nor American citizens, had their cases approved for transfer by a US immigration judge.
Their arrival follows a separate group of 12 deportees who landed a day earlier aboard a private charter flight, bringing renewed scrutiny to the arrangement and its implications.
The development has triggered sharp criticism from legal bodies, with the Uganda Law Society leading opposition to the agreement.
“This is an undignified, harrowing and dehumanizing spectacle that treats vulnerable people like chattel for unnamed private interests,” ULS said in a statement, adding that it had filed a High Court petition alongside the East Africa Law Society seeking to block further transfers.
The legal groups described the arrangement as an “international illegality” and linked it to what they termed a broader authoritarian agenda.
Uganda’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed the arrivals, stating that the individuals were of African origin, neither Ugandan nor American, and unwilling to return to their countries of origin.
Permanent Secretary Vincent Bagiire Waiswa said the move aligns with Uganda’s “longstanding commitment to sanctuary and dignity.”
Meanwhile, State Minister for Foreign Affairs Henry Okello Oryem framed the deal as a humanitarian response.
“It’s a humanitarian concern for Africans unwanted elsewhere,” he said.
Officials from the US Embassy in Kampala said the transfers were conducted “in full cooperation” with the Ugandan government, though they declined to provide further details on individual cases due to privacy considerations.
The agreement, formally titled the Agreement for Cooperation in the Examination of Protection Requests, was signed on July 29, 2025, in Kampala and later published in the US Federal Register.
It allows the United States to transfer asylum seekers deemed unlikely to qualify for protection under US law, but who may still face risks in their home countries, to Uganda for full refugee status determination.
Under the deal:
- Uganda retains the right to accept or reject cases individually
- Persons with criminal records and unaccompanied minors are excluded
- The principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning individuals to danger—is explicitly upheld
Uganda processes such cases under its Refugees Act, 2006, while the US relies on provisions within its Immigration and Nationality Act.
Critics argue the agreement risks overwhelming Uganda’s already stretched refugee infrastructure. According to the UNHCR, Uganda hosts nearly two million refugees, primarily from the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, Sudan, and Eritrea.
Also Read: Uganda denies US media report of deportation deal with Trump administration
Recent policy changes have further complicated the situation. In December 2025, authorities suspended new refugee status determinations for nationals from certain non-conflict countries amid funding shortfalls, raising questions about capacity and fairness.
“Can our overburdened system guarantee fair, timely hearings?,” the ULS petition asks, warning of potential due process concerns.
The unfolding legal challenge is expected to test the agreement’s compatibility with both Ugandan law and international refugee obligations.
Analysts say the case could set a precedent for similar “safe third country” arrangements being pursued globally.
For Uganda, the issue presents a delicate balancing act between its longstanding reputation as a regional refugee haven and the practical limits of its resources.
As the High Court prepares to hear the petition, the outcome could reshape not only Uganda’s migration policy but also its role in an increasingly complex global asylum system.
