The government of Uganda has confirmed receiving a group of eight individuals deported from the United States under a bilateral migration arrangement. The deportees, described as people of African origin, arrived in Uganda between 1 and 2 April 2026.
According to Ugandan officials, the group consisted of seven men and one woman originating from countries including Mauritania, Angola, Ethiopia, Mali, Togo, and Guinea. Their asylum requests in the US were reportedly rejected, prompting the deportation.
Background of the Agreement
These transfers are part of a “Safe Third Country Agreement” signed between the US and Uganda in July 2025. The deal allows Uganda to serve as a country where certain migrants can have their protection claims processed instead of being returned directly to their home countries. The Ugandan authorities have emphasized that the deportations adhere to international obligations, including the principle of non-refoulement, ensuring that none of the individuals are sent back to dangerous situations.
Reactions and Legal Concerns
The deportation has sparked criticism in Uganda. The Uganda Law Society labeled the process illegal and dehumanizing, and it has initiated legal action to challenge the government’s decision. Human rights groups have also expressed concerns over the US policy of deporting migrants to third countries, citing potential humanitarian and legal risks.
Ugandan officials, however, have defended the agreement, stating that the individuals will receive proper protection services upon arrival. Critics argue that the arrangement was implemented without sufficient consultation and lacks clear legal guidelines.
Context: US Third-Country Deportation Strategy
The United States has increasingly used third-country deportations for migrants whose asylum applications are denied or whose home countries are unwilling to accept them. This approach has involved several African nations, with Uganda being one of the latest recipients. Human rights organizations have repeatedly questioned the legality and humanitarian implications of this practice.
0 Comments