The government of Uganda has officially halted the registration of refugees from countries including Somalia, Ethiopia, and Eritrea, citing administrative and security concerns. The move comes amid growing public debate over the impact of migration on urban centres, housing, and employment, as well as a rising populist discourse among politicians.
Uganda has long been celebrated for its friendly tenor to refugees, with settlements housing hundreds of thousands of people fleeing conflict in the Horn of Africa. However, in recent months, registration has slowed, leaving many aspiring refugees in a state of limbo. Analysts say the decision may reflect political calculations as much as bureaucratic limitations.
‘Numbers matter in politics,’ says Ms Juliet Katusiime, a political analyst. ‘Refugee populations are visible in urban areas, and politicians have increasingly used migration as a populist issue to win support. The perception of strain on local services, housing, and jobs can be leveraged on the campaign trail.’
Populist tenor
In Makindye East, Kampala, the local population has voiced frustration over the impact of the growing migrant population. ‘Since these migrants came, rent prices have gone up. You cannot find affordable housing anymore,’ says Mr Vicent Tumusiime, a native resident. Similar sentiments have been reported in other urban neighbourhoods, where ordinary Ugandans feel squeezed by rising rents and competition for jobs. ‘With elections drawing near, the issue of immigration and security has become a rallying point for some politicians seeking to project strength and national control,’ Mr Timothy Chemonges, the Executive Director of the Centre for Policy Analysis (CEPA), notes.
He adds: ‘Intelligence briefings in recent months have pointed to rising cross-border movement, including reports of unverified foreign nationals entering through informal routes, particularly from conflict-prone neighbouring states.’ Coupled with growing public pressure over crime, housing shortages, and unemployment in urban areas, the government has moved to signal firmness. According to insiders, the suspension is intended to allow for a policy review, data verification, and tighter coordination among security and immigration agencies.
Mr Hilary Onek, the minister for Relief, Disaster Preparedness and Refugees, says Uganda cannot turn away people fleeing violence and conflict from neighbouring countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. ‘International law does not allow us to do that. We register them as refugees,’ Mr Onek said, adding: ‘The only problem we have is with people who fly into Uganda for greener pastures-those from Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Pakistan. We don’t even have common borders with them. They come here looking for business opportunities, and in such cases, we have no justification to register them as refugees,’ he says.
Mr Onek says investigations revealed that some of these individuals had successfully established profitable businesses in Uganda.
‘People from Pakistan and Eritrea have made money here and become powerful,’ he says. ‘If you want to do business in Uganda, you must get a visa, usually valid for three months, and then apply for a work permit depending on your activity,’ the minister explains.
Line in the sand
Mr Onek reveals that Uganda currently hosts about 50,000 Eritreans, many of whom came for economic reasons rather than as refugees escaping persecution.
Local authorities, already stretched, fear that an increase in unregistered residents could complicate planning and strain relations between host communities and newcomers. Humanitarian groups have warned that this could fuel resentment and social tension, especially in Kampala, Arua, Gulu, and Mbarara, where migrant populations are significant.
‘The challenge now,’ Mr Chemonges emphasises, ‘is to craft a balanced, evidence-based policy that secures national interests without undermining Uganda’s international commitments’. He suggests long-term measures such as developing digital migration data systems to track movement without disrupting essential services, creating urban integration plans that link refugee support with local development, improving coordination among security, immigration, and social welfare agencies and strengthening community engagement programmes to reduce fear and misinformation around migrants.
Politicians have not been silent. During rallies and campaign stops ahead of the upcoming elections, several candidates have touched on migration, often with a populist tone. Some promise stricter controls and closer scrutiny of new arrivals, framing the debate as one of national interest and economic security, as witnessed with Mr Mubarak Munyagwa, the presidential flag-bearer of the Common Man’s Party. Humanitarian organisations have cautioned against the politicisation of refugee issues, warning that migrants remain highly vulnerable.
‘Stopping registration doesn’t make migration disappear; it just drives people into informal and potentially unsafe channels,’ says Mariam Abdi, a spokesperson for a refugee rights group in Kampala.
As Uganda navigates this delicate issue, the tension between political expediency, public perception, and humanitarian obligations is becoming increasingly visible. For voters and policymakers alike, migration is no longer just a regional matter-it is a domestic political flashpoint. ‘The withdrawal or reduction of support from partners such as the United States and UN agencies, particularly the World Food Programme, whose budget has been cut by a third or more, has weakened the government’s capacity to feed and support refugees,’ Mr Marlon Agaba, the executive director of the Anti-Corruption Coalition Uganda (ACCU), observes.
Mr Agaba notes that tensions are growing, especially among urban refugees. ‘When you look at the situation in Kisenyi and other urban areas, it’s still manageable. But in [the] West Nile [Sub-region], particularly Arua [District], the refugee population is rapidly increasing. This brings pressure on land and local resources, which could be part of the reason the government wants to suspend refugee registration.’ He adds that the long-term strategy should involve working with refugees’ countries of origin to ensure conditions are safe for their return.
Dutch deal
This comes as the Dutch government prepares to send dozens of migrants to Uganda under a deal similar to one struck by the Trump administration, despite possible legal and practical challenges. The Dutch Migration and Foreign Affairs minister, Mr David van Weel, told the Financial Times this week that a ‘transit hub’ in Uganda where people would be deported could start operating as early as next year. Mr Van Weel says the agreement was ‘in compliance with international law, with European law, with our national laws . . . But of course, this will be appealed in the beginning, and then we’ll see whether or not that holds up.’
Human rights were a central component to the agreement struck last month with Kampala, Mr Van Weel says, something that is not a priority for Washington.
‘We don’t deny a responsibility that human rights of people that we send there need to be respected. That’s clear,’ Mr Van Weel says, adding that they had asked the UN refugee agency UNHCR and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) to manage the centres on the ground.
In August, the Trump administration entered into an agreement with Kampala to take in rejected asylum seekers from the US. But Washington does not seek the collaboration of any UN agencies in its deportation plans. The Ugandan Foreign Affairs ministry at the time said it would prefer to take in individuals from African countries, and that it would not accept those with criminal records or unaccompanied minors.
The Dutch deal, which still needs to be finalised, would have Uganda taking in people that the Dutch government has been unable to send to their home countries, per Mr Van Weel. He adds that LGBT+ people would not be sent to Uganda to protect them from its discriminatory laws, which punish being gay with life in prison or even death. ‘I think we have [a] responsibility for [the] people we send there,’ he said. ‘There’s also a responsibility from the Ugandan side.’
Mr Vincent Bagiire, the permanent secretary in Uganda’s Foreign Affairs ministry, says Kampala has proposed measures similar to the deal with Washington. This means ‘accepting persons without a criminal record and persons of African origin who shall not use Uganda for political activism’. He says: ‘Uganda hosts both the IOM and UNHCR, and we shall collaborate to benefit from their expertise in matters of migration.’
The Granular details
According to Eurostat, the Netherlands last year ordered about 19,000 people to leave the country, and returned some 4,200. There can be a lag between a return decision and actual deportation, mainly due to legal challenges. The top nationalities who could not be returned by the Netherlands were not from the region around Uganda, but from Ukraine, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco and Syria-countries with high numbers of asylum applications in general-raising questions about the effectiveness of the Uganda deal. Dutch Migration and Foreign Affairs minister David van Weel says ‘it’s not only about solving the immediate problem of these cases, it’s also about the signal that we’re sending out’ as a ‘deterrent’.
‘If you have been issued a negative return decision, you have to leave voluntarily, because if not, then you will go to Uganda,’ he explains, adding that people would ‘become more co-operative once they are already outside of Europe’. Rights activists and some migration experts have criticised such schemes over concerns about rights breaches. Critics also argue that it would be more efficient to invest in asylum infrastructure in Europe. Mr Weel declined to say how much the ‘transition hub’ in Uganda would cost. The minister says UN organisations were ‘positive towards the idea’ of managing the return hub, as they are ‘already very active in Uganda.’
The IOM says it was ‘engaging closely’ with European partners, including the Dutch government, in implementing the EU’s new asylum rules and ‘return processes.’ UNHCR says it had ‘not seen the details’ nor had any ‘formal discussions’ on the Dutch-Ugandan deal and that its potential role would be limited to advising governments that centres comply with rights standards.