Eight people were flown here in April 2026 under an asylum cooperative agreement published in the Federal Register. The Committee against Torture examined Uganda in 2022 and found torture widespread, unauthorised places of detention still in use, and no information on diplomatic assurances or their monitoring.
What the record showsA receiving stateAs of September 8, 2026
Arrangement reported
Yes
Transfers reported
Yes
People with protection among them
Investigating
Onward return reported
Investigating
These are statements about the public record, not about the country. "Investigating" means the Coalition has not located a report or a decision on that point and is still looking. It is not a finding that the thing did not happen.
Each fact links to the document it is taken from. The full account follows below.
The agreement. The Agreement for Cooperation in the Examination of Protection Requests was signed at Kampala on 29 July 2025, entered into force on signature, and was published in the Federal Register on 3 September 2025 and by the State Department as TIAS 25-729. Under Article 3(1) Uganda “agrees not to return any person transferred to the Republic of Uganda by the Government of the United States of America to their home country or country of former habitual residence until a final decision has been made regarding any pending protection claims.” Sources: State Department text, TIAS 25-729 · Federal Register, 90 FR 42597 · Coalition copy (PDF) · Berkeley Reading Room
Who was sent. Eight people were sent to Uganda in early April 2026, seven men and one woman from Mauritania, Angola, Ethiopia, Mali, Togo and Guinea, by the count Ugandan officials confirmed. The Uganda Law Society and the East Africa Law Society, which put the number at twelve, called the transfers “an undignified, harrowing and dehumanising process.” Sources: Third Country Deportation Watch, Uganda page (updated 30 July 2026) · Al Jazeera, 2 April 2026
What ICE has told United States courts. In habeas cases in the Western District of Michigan, ICE has stated that removal flights to Uganda have been paused since about June 2026 because of an Ebola outbreak, and judges ordered people released on 8 and 22 October 2026. One of those courts also recorded an earlier ICE statement that “As of June 29, 2026, ICE confirmed that removal missions to Uganda were being completed monthly, with approximately 10 individuals removed each month.” Those statements, and the eight arrivals of early April 2026 that Ugandan officials confirmed, have not been reconciled. Sources: Mbituyimana v. Putra, No. 1:26-cv-02577 (W.D. Mich.), ECF 13 · Mohameddou v. Putra, No. 1:26-cv-02829 (W.D. Mich.), ECF 6 · Bowba v. Unknown Party, No. 1:26-cv-02330 (W.D. Mich.), ECF 9
Claims closed without a transfer. Third Country Deportation Watch reports that “between December 2025 and August 2026, 2,823 non-Ugandan asylum seekers had their cases pretermitted and were designated for removal first to Uganda under the ACA,” attributing the count to immigration court data held by Mobile Pathways, which publishes that data only as dashboards. Human Rights Watch reported on 8 October 2026 that United States immigration courts issued “final orders of removal to 2,914 third-country nationals to Uganda” between 20 January 2025 and 31 July 2026, and that “94 percent (2,746 cases) were based on pretermission motions.” The two counts measure different things over different periods. Sources: Third Country Deportation Watch, Uganda page (updated 10 September 2026) · Mobile Pathways, Immigration Court Data · HRW, To Scare People, pp. 92 to 93
What a UN body found. The Committee against Torture stated in concluding observations adopted on 22 November 2022 that it was “deeply concerned by reports that torture and ill-treatment continue to be widespread and frequently practised in Uganda.” It reiterated that Uganda “should abolish the use of ‘ungazetted’ or unauthorized places of detention or ‘safe houses’.” Source: CAT/C/UGA/CO/2, paragraphs 11 and 22
Onward return. Third Country Deportation Watch reports that as of July 2026, “two of the eight individuals have been granted refugee status in Uganda, one fled the country, four returned to their home countries and one is awaiting repatriation.” New Lines Magazine reported on 21 September 2026 that “Two have been granted asylum in Uganda,” that “five out of the eight deportees have been voluntarily repatriated to their respective countries,” and that an Ethiopian “later fled to a neighboring country, Kenya.” Sources: Third Country Deportation Watch, Uganda page (updated 10 September 2026) · New Lines Magazine, 21 September 2026
A body that can order release. Article 53(2) of Uganda’s Constitution allows the Uganda Human Rights Commission, if satisfied that a human right or freedom has been infringed, to order “the release of a detained or restricted person.” Article 53(4)(b) bars it from investigating “a matter involving the relations or dealings between the Government and the Government of any foreign State or international organisation.” Source: Constitution of Uganda 1995, article 53 (Judiciary of Uganda)
AlertTortureUganda
Basis: findings by the United Nations Committee against Torture on its 2022 examination of Uganda, and Uganda’s position outside two of the three international safeguards.
Committee against Torture · CAT/C/UGA/CO/2 · adopted 22 November 2022
“The Committee is deeply concerned by reports that torture and ill-treatment continue to be widespread and frequently practiced in Uganda.” The police record cases of torture as assault, so that “access to justice by victims is thereby limited.”
The Committee “remains concerned at reports indicating that this practice still takes place” and reiterated that Uganda should abolish the use of “‘ungazetted’ or unauthorized places of detention or ‘safe houses’.”
The Committee “regrets the lack of information” on the cases in which Uganda has offered or accepted diplomatic assurances “and on the measures taken in such cases with regard to subsequent monitoring.” It recommended that procedural safeguards against refoulement be put in place.
United Nations Treaty Collection · status verified September 2026
Uganda sits outside two of the three safeguards. It has not ratified the Optional Protocol and has made no declaration under article 22, so no individual may complain to the Committee. Both 2022 recommendations remain outstanding.
What an Alert meansDesignated September 7, 2026Review: on the pretermission count, 2,823 to August 2026 on Third Country Deportation Watch’s figures, and on whether removal flights to Uganda resume
The Coalition’s position. This state agreed to receive people who are not its nationals, moved against their will, under a programme United States federal courts have found punitive and whose purpose was stated publicly before the agreement was made. On the Coalition’s position it has knowingly facilitated that programme, and the wrong is complete at the moment of agreement. Nothing on this page is offered as mitigation. What a country agrees to when people are forcibly sent to it.
What has happened
Uganda received eight people. In the same period, thousands of asylum claims belonging to non-Ugandans were closed out on the basis that Uganda was available to receive them.
The arrangement did its work without the flights. An asylum claim can be extinguished by the existence of a third country whether or not anyone is ever sent there.
Transferred. 8 people on 1 or 2 April 2026. Other accounts give 12 or 20; the figure of 8 is the one named Ugandan officials confirmed
Arrangement. Asylum Cooperative Agreement, published in the Federal Register on 3 September 2025. Published by the State Department as TIAS 25-729, one of several African arrangements the State Department has now published, alongside Liberia (TIAS 25-910) and Cabo Verde (TIAS 25-1119.1)
United States funding. The federal award record shows a State Department award of $9,000,000, signed on 30 January 2026, to the United Nations refugee agency for its “2026 global appeal for its operations in Uganda that will help enable Uganda to meet refugee and migration needs arising from these circumstances, as well as those related to STCA implementation.” The award is to the agency, not to the Government of Uganda. The record lists the amount as obligated and, read on 5 November 2026, shows no outlays against it. Sources: USAspending.gov, award SPRMCO26VC0041 · UC Berkeley Human Rights Center, Architecture of Cruelty, 5 October 2026, pages 54 to 56
What Ugandan officials confirmed, against what the lawyers said.
Ministry of Internal Affairs spokesperson Simon Mundeyi and the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs both confirmed eight arrivals, “seven men and one woman from six African countries, including Mauritania, Angola, Ethiopia, Mali, Togo and Guinea,” classified as asylum seekers. The Uganda Law Society said twelve. One Ugandan outlet reported twenty across two flights. No other source corroborates a second flight.
ICE’s own statements to United States courts add two more accounts, and they do not agree with each other. A ruling of 8 October 2026 records what an ICE declarant told the court in an earlier round of the same case: “As of June 29, 2026, ICE confirmed that removal missions to Uganda were being completed monthly, with approximately 10 individuals removed each month.” In another case, a court recorded on 16 September that a removal mission scheduled for 26 May 2026 “was cancelled,” and that on 30 June ICE Headquarters had responded “that due to a current Ebola outbreak there are no future removal missions scheduled to Uganda at that time.” Third Country Deportation Watch counted eight people removed to Uganda as of July 2026. The figures have not been reconciled, and the matter is unresolved. Sources: Mbituyimana v. Putra, No. 1:26-cv-02577 (W.D. Mich.), ECF 13 · El Maaloum v. Raycraft, No. 1:26-cv-02471 (W.D. Mich.), ECF 12 · Third Country Deportation Watch, Uganda page (updated 30 July 2026)
What happened to the eight.
Third Country Deportation Watch reports that as of July 2026, “two of the eight individuals have been granted refugee status in Uganda, one fled the country, four returned to their home countries and one is awaiting repatriation.” Source: Third Country Deportation Watch, Uganda page (updated 30 July 2026)
New Lines Magazine, reporting on 21 September 2026, gives a later account. On arrival the men “were unshackled before the group was driven to a hotel in Mengo.” By September, “Two have been granted asylum in Uganda,” “five out of the eight deportees have been voluntarily repatriated to their respective countries,” and an Ethiopian “later fled to a neighboring country, Kenya.” On that account, five of the eight people sent to Uganda had been repatriated to their own countries less than six months after they arrived. New Lines also reported an account that, for those granted asylum, “the Office of the Prime Minister had instructed the hotel management to eject them after two months’ stay,” and a government official’s reply that “the Ugandan government did not threaten to expel them from the hotel after two months.” Whether any of the eight was detained in Uganda is still being investigated. Source: New Lines Magazine, 21 September 2026
What the record says about Uganda itself
The pretermission figure, and exactly how far it can be taken.
Third Country Deportation Watch, a joint project of Refugees International and Human Rights First, states that “between December 2025 and August 2026, 2,823 non-Ugandan asylum seekers had their cases pretermitted and were designated for removal first to Uganda under the ACA,” attributing the count to immigration court data held by Mobile Pathways. The page earlier gave 2,727 for December 2025 to June 2026. Sources: Third Country Deportation Watch, Uganda page (updated 10 September 2026) · Mobile Pathways, Immigration Court Data
The tracker publishes a nationality breakdown alongside the total, covering 38 countries and led by Guinea (673), Senegal (462), Mauritania (365), Cameroon (262) and Ethiopia (143). It sums to 2,614, not 2,823. The tracker says that the people it lists “were from Africa” and that “a significant number were from Asia and countries in the Americas”; it gives no breakdown for those, so the remaining 209 are not broken down by nationality. Source: Third Country Deportation Watch, Uganda page (updated 10 September 2026)
The underlying data cannot be inspected. Mobile Pathways publishes dashboards rather than a dataset, including one described as covering respondents “ordered removed to a country that differs from their nationality under formal ACA agreements or other agreements.” Its case-level tool requires an account, and it publishes no methodology note. So the figure is attributable to named organisations relying on a named source, and it is not independently checkable by a reader. Source: Mobile Pathways, Immigration Court Data
What is checkable is the surrounding picture, and it is consistent. Joseph Gunther and Brandon Marrow, publishing as bklg on 16 March 2026 from the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s own FOIA library, current through 28 February 2026, found that immigration judges granted more than 23,000 DHS pretermission motions between November 2025 and February 2026, roughly three times the number they denied. They found that over 22 per cent of asylum applicants with February 2026 hearings faced a pretermission motion, rising to 36 per cent at individual hearings. They found pretermissions outside any asylum cooperative agreement rising from 29 cases in March 2025 to more than 1,300 in each of January and February 2026. And they found at least 59 non-Ugandan children, some as young as two, ordered removed to Uganda after pretermission motions.
New York Focus, drawing on the same researchers, reports that of roughly 2,350 African asylum seekers with hearings in New York between December and February, “just under 50 percent were subject to motions to abandon their cases.”
Human Rights Watch published a separate count on 8 October 2026: “Between January 20, 2025 and July 31, 2026, US immigration courts issued final orders of removal to 2,914 third-country nationals to Uganda. Of that total, 94 percent (2,746 cases) were based on pretermission motions.” Citing Mobile Pathways, it reports that “some 2,718 asylum cases were closed citing Uganda as the country where asylum would be sought” from January 2025 to the end of May 2026, and that, although Uganda’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has said the agreement relates only to people “of African origin,” 200 of the cases pretermitted “were of asylum seekers whose country of origin was a country outside Africa, including 34 from Russia, 27 from India, 16 from Venezuela, 16 from Singapore, and 14 from China, along with smaller numbers from a wide array of nationalities, including Haiti, Syria, Iran, and Mexico.” These counts cover different measures and periods from the tracker’s, and are set beside it here. Source: HRW, To Scare People, pp. 92 to 94
Third Country Deportation Watch, Uganda page, background last updated 10 September 2026 (an earlier version, dated 30 July 2026, gave 2,727). Joseph Gunther and Brandon Marrow, “No Hearing Necessary,” bklg, 16 March 2026. Mobile Pathways, Immigration Court Data. Correction: an earlier version of this page said the nationality breakdown summed to 1,935 and that the compilation could not be opened. Both were wrong. The breakdown then summed to 2,523, and the tracker is public. Sources: Third Country Deportation Watch, Uganda page · bklg, ‘No Hearing Necessary’, 16 March 2026 · Mobile Pathways, Immigration Court Data
The legal profession in the region called it what it is.
The Uganda Law Society and the East Africa Law Society called the transfers “an undignified, harrowing and dehumanising process,” their vice-president adding: “We view it as but one gust from the ill winds of transnational repression that are blowing across our world.” They announced that they had “approached the Courts of Law in Uganda and the region”; the Coalition is still investigating whether a case was filed. Source: Al Jazeera, 2 April 2026
The Committee against Torture examined Uganda in 2022 and found what matters here.
CAT/C/UGA/CO/2, adopted 22 November 2022. On torture: “The Committee is deeply concerned by reports that torture and ill-treatment continue to be widespread and frequently practiced in Uganda.” It recorded that the police “still uses the Penal Code Act Cap 120, recording cases of torture as assault,” so that “access to justice by victims is thereby limited,” and noted “the reluctance of victims and witnesses to report torture to competent authorities as they fear reprisals.” Source: CAT/C/UGA/CO/2, paragraph 11
On unlawful detention sites: the Committee “remains concerned at reports indicating that this practice still takes place in Uganda” and reiterated that Uganda “should abolish the use of ‘ungazetted’ or unauthorized places of detention or ‘safe houses’.” Source: CAT/C/UGA/CO/2, paragraphs 21 and 22
On non-refoulement, and this is the passage that bears directly on Uganda as a country people were sent to: the Committee “regrets the lack of information available on the number of extraditions carried out during the reporting period, the number of instances and the types of cases in which the State party has offered or accepted diplomatic assurances or guarantees, and on the measures taken in such cases with regard to subsequent monitoring.” It recommended that Uganda ensure “procedural safeguards against refoulement are in place” and “effective remedies … including reviews of rejections by an independent judicial body.” Source: CAT/C/UGA/CO/2, paragraphs 13 and 14
Uganda is outside two of the three international safeguards.
The Committee recommended in 2022 that Uganda “consider ratifying the Optional Protocol” and “consider making the declaration under article 22 … recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications.” Both recommendations remain outstanding. The Committee recorded that Uganda’s second periodic report “was submitted 12 years late.” Source: CAT/C/UGA/CO/2, paragraphs 26(f) and 53
What is already before the courts
No United States court has designated Uganda a safe third country, whatever Uganda’s foreign ministry says.
One research institute reports Uganda’s foreign ministry claiming that “a US judge approved the deportations on the grounds that America had designated Uganda as a safe third country.” No such decision exists, and safe-country designation is not a judicial function. Present it as a government assertion and say that no supporting decision is in the public record.
The Uganda agreement is squarely at issue in U.T. v. Bondi, now captioned U.T. v. Blanche, No. 1:20-cv-00116-EGS (D.D.C.), the challenge to the Asylum Cooperative Agreement framework, in which no merits holding has yet issued. On 21 September 2026 Judge Emmet G. Sullivan certified a class of “All noncitizens whom Defendants have sought or will seek to bar from asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture in removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1229a on the basis that they can be removed to a third country under an Asylum Cooperative Agreement pursuant to the Rule, Guidance, or Designations,” excluding people whose claims have received final and unappealable decisions on their merits on other grounds, and allowed the plaintiffs to add the agreements with Belize and Liberia to the case. The opinion records the Uganda agreement among those challenged: “On July 29, 2025, the United States signed an ACA with Uganda, which was published in the Federal Register on September 3, 2025.” Source: U.T. v. Blanche, memorandum opinion, ECF 201, 21 September 2026
Two men were served notices that the United States intended to send them to Uganda, on the same day, and in neither case did anything follow.
Uganda appears twice in habeas proceedings in the Western District of Washington as a country the United States told a detained man it intended to remove him to. Both notices are dated 2 September 2025. The two men had nothing to do with one another. One is a citizen of Egypt. The other is a citizen of Russia.
In the Egyptian man’s case an immigration judge had already found that he would more likely than not be tortured if he were returned to Egypt. The notice naming Uganda came in the final days of the ninety-day removal period. When the court examined what had followed it, it found nothing:
“There is no evidence that the Government has taken any steps, before or since that date, to remove Petitioner to Uganda. There is no evidence that steps have been taken to obtain a Ugandan travel document for Petitioner, that Uganda has any interest in accepting Petitioner, or even that there has been any communication with Uganda regarding Petitioner at all. Notably, Uganda is not among the countries whose consulates were contacted about receiving Petitioner.” Sources: Elshourbagy v. Bondi (W.D. Wash. 23 December 2025), register entry · Elshourbagy v. Bondi, order, ECF 14, page 8 (CourtListener)
In the Russian man’s case the notice naming Uganda was served after he had told officers he would go to Canada, Denmark, France, Norway or Germany. Two weeks later he was instructed to complete forms for those countries instead. Requests eventually went to Denmark, Norway and Sweden, and none of them replied. Uganda was never pursued.
The Coalition records these for what they are. They are notices of intent and nothing more, and no United States court has made any finding about conditions in Uganda in either case. But two notices naming the same country, issued on one day in unrelated cases, and neither of them acted on, raise a question this page cannot answer. The Coalition puts it to the United States and to Uganda directly: was there an arrangement concerning Uganda in September 2025, and if there was, what did it say?
ICE has told United States courts that removal flights to Uganda are paused because of Ebola, and two courts have ordered people released.
People ordered removed to Uganda under the Asylum Cooperative Agreement have brought habeas petitions in the Western District of Michigan. In Bowba v. Unknown Party (3 September 2026) an ICE declarant attested that as of June 2026 “all removal flights to Uganda were paused as a result of an outbreak of the Ebola virus.” In El Maaloum v. Raycraft (16 September 2026) the court recorded that a removal mission scheduled for 26 May 2026 “was cancelled” and that ICE Headquarters had said on 30 June that “due to a current Ebola outbreak there are no future removal missions scheduled to Uganda at that time”; it granted no relief at that stage. Sources: Bowba v. Unknown Party, No. 1:26-cv-02330 (W.D. Mich.), ECF 9 · El Maaloum v. Raycraft, No. 1:26-cv-02471 (W.D. Mich.), ECF 12
In Mbituyimana v. Putra (8 October 2026) Judge Beckering recorded that “ICE has confirmed that flights to Uganda ‘are paused because of Ebola’” and granted the petition. The same opinion records that ICE had placed the petitioner “on the third country removal list for removal to Uganda” on 18 March 2026, and that an ICE declarant had stated that as of 29 June removals to Uganda were running monthly, at about ten people a month. In Mohameddou v. Putra (22 October 2026), the case of a Mauritanian ordered “removed to Uganda under the Asylum Cooperative Agreement,” an ICE declaration filed on 9 October stated that all flights to Uganda under the agreement were paused because of an Ebola outbreak, and Judge Maloney ordered release. The outbreak is reported here as ICE’s explanation to the courts. Sources: Mbituyimana v. Putra, No. 1:26-cv-02577 (W.D. Mich.), ECF 13 · Mohameddou v. Putra, No. 1:26-cv-02829 (W.D. Mich.), ECF 6
The first days
Uganda has something no other country in this project has. Its Human Rights Commission can order a detained person released. That power is in the Constitution, it is enforceable as a court order, and an appeal from it lies to the High Court.
It also has a limit that may matter here more than anywhere else, and this page sets the two out together rather than leading with the good half. Everything else is thinner: Uganda is not a party to the Optional Protocol at all, has never accepted individual complaints to the Committee against Torture, and cannot be taken to the African Court by an individual.
What exists, in the order in which it usually matters
Write to the Human Rights Commission, and ask it to exercise article 53(2)
This is the first thing to do, and it is worth doing in those words. Article 53(2) of the Constitution provides that the commission may, if satisfied there has been an infringement of a human right or freedom, order the release of a detained or restricted person, the payment of compensation, or any other legal remedy or redress. Article 53(1) gives it the powers of a court, including the power to commit for contempt. Read the limit in the next section before you rely on it, then write anyway.
Get word to someone outside the country
The International Committee of the Red Cross has had a delegation in Uganda since 1972, and it does detention work here. In 2025 it made 21 visits to 7 detention facilities and followed 274 people individually. Its details are below. A family that does not know which country you are in cannot instruct a lawyer for you.
Call the refugee agency helpline
The United Nations refugee agency operates a toll-free inter-agency helpline in Uganda, which is unusual, and publishes an email address for it. Both are below.
Ask for a lawyer
The Uganda Law Society is the bar association, established under the Uganda Law Society Act of 1956. The Coalition could not reach its contact page at any point and does not publish a number taken from a directory. If you can reach it, its site is uls.or.ug.
Who is reachable in Uganda
Official complaint bodies
National human rights institution, A status, with power to order release
Uganda Human Rights Commission
Established by article 51 of the Constitution of 1995. Article 52(1)(b) gives it the function of visiting jails, prisons and places of detention to assess and inspect conditions. Article 53(2) allows it to order the release of a detained person, compensation, or any other legal remedy. Offices at Plot 19, Lumumba Avenue, Rumee Building, Kampala; P.O. Box 4929, Kampala. Eleven regional offices with their own contact details are listed on its site. WARNING ON THE NUMBERS: the commission’s own contact page prints numbers in a form that is not dialable as spaced, and they do not match the numbers on the Government of Uganda e-services portal, which gives 0800100766 and 0417735300. The Coalition has not been able to confirm either set by voice and publishes them with that caveat.
Delegation established in 1972; it is the regional delegation covering Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi. In its own words it carries out detention work in the country and provides protection of family links services. In 2025 it made 21 detention visits to 7 facilities, followed 274 inmates individually, held 12 meetings with authorities on the treatment and conditions of detainees, and exchanged 110 Red Cross messages between detainees and their families. Offices at Plot 8, John Babiiha Avenue, Kololo, P.O. Box 4442, Kampala, open 08:00 to 17:00.
Representation office at Plot 11/13, Mackenzie Close, off Mackenzie Vale, Kololo, P.O. Box 3813, Kampala. Extension office at Plot 279, Sir Apollo Kaggwa Road. Sub-offices at Adjumani, Arua and Mbarara, and field offices at Kampala, Kiryandongo, Kisoro, Kyaka, Kyangwali, Lamwo, Moyo, Nakivale, Rwamwanja and Yumbe. The number given is the toll-free inter-agency feedback and response helpline. The agency publishes nothing about people deported or transferred into Uganda.
Plot 6A Bukoto Crescent, Naguru, P.O. Box 11431, Kampala. Public information: ugandapiu@iom.int. Its published work on returns is framed around the voluntary return of Ugandan nationals, not third-country transfers, and it publishes nothing about assistance to people in detention.
The Uganda Law Society is Uganda’s bar association, established under the Uganda Law Society Act of 1956, CAP 276. Its own contact page could not be reached by the Coalition at any point, and no telephone number, address or email is published here rather than one taken from a third-party directory. Its site is uls.or.ug. Sources: Uganda Law Society Act, Cap. 276 · Uganda Law Society site
There is a court you can file in, and you have two months
Read this first if you or someone you know is detained here now.
This country is a member of the East African Community. Its Court of Justice, sitting at Arusha, is open to any person resident in a Partner State. You do not need this country to have signed anything extra. You do not have to go through the local courts first.
But the time limit is two months, and it runs from the day the detention began, not the day it ends.
Article 30(2) of the Treaty establishing the East African Community requires proceedings to be brought “within two months of the enactment, publication, directive, decision or action complained of, or in the absence thereof, of the day in which it came to the knowledge of the complainant.”Source: EAC Treaty, Article 30(2) (EALA text)
The Court’s Appellate Division has held that this is absolute. In a case brought by men who had been seized in one country, taken to another and were still in detention when they filed, the Court said:
“The Court finds the Respondents’ argument that when the act complained of is a continuous detention, the starting date for computation of its limitation time is the day when it ceases is erroneous… nowhere does the Treaty provide any power to the Court to extend, to condone, to waive, or to modify the prescribed time limit for any reason (including for ‘continuing violations’).” Source: AG Uganda v Omar Awadh, Appeal No. 2 of 2012, paragraph 59
“the starting date of an act complained of under Article 30(2), (including the detention of a complainant), is not the day the act ends, but the day it is first effected.” Source: AG Uganda v Omar Awadh, Appeal No. 2 of 2012, paragraph 60
Their case was struck out while they were still held. If you have been detained for more than two months, this door has probably closed. If you have been detained for less than two months, it is open today and will not be open for long.
The one narrow exception, and it is about concealment.
Where a state hid the detention, the Court has allowed a case to proceed because the state could not show when the applicant or their family learned of it. That is a point about who must prove what, not a doctrine that a continuing detention restarts the clock. If your detention was concealed from your family, say so, and say when they found out, because the date they found out may be the date that counts.
What you can and cannot ask the Court to decide.
This matters, and getting it wrong loses the case at the door. The Court has no human rights jurisdiction as such. The protocol that was supposed to give it one, under Article 27(2) of the Treaty, has never been agreed.
What the Court can do is interpret the Treaty, and it has held that a state breaches the Treaty when it breaks the rule of law. The obligations to use are Article 6(d), which binds Partner States to good governance including “adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law” and “the recognition, promotion and protection of human and peoples rights in accordance with the provisions of the African Charter”, and Article 7(2), by which states undertake to abide by “the maintenance of universally accepted standards of human rights”. Source: EAC Treaty, Articles 6(d) and 7(2) (EALA text)
The Court put its own position this way:
“While the Court will not assume jurisdiction to adjudicate on human rights disputes, it will not abdicate from exercising its jurisdiction of interpretation under Article 27(1) merely because the Reference includes allegation of human rights violation.” Source: Katabazi, Reference No. 1 of 2007
So the claim must be framed as a breach of the Treaty, not as a human rights violation. A case pleaded the other way round is likely to fail on jurisdiction without anyone looking at what happened to you.
One more limit, and it bites on people transferred here.
The Court has protected a person turned back at an airport and briefly detained, but on the basis of free movement rights that belong to citizens of Partner States. It said expressly that the national immigration law remains applicable “where citizens of other nations, except the Partner States, are concerned.” A person transferred here from outside East Africa cannot use that route and has only the rule of law argument under Articles 6(d) and 7(2).
Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, Articles 6(d), 7(2), 27, 30 and 38, from the text published by the East African Legislative Assembly. Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v Omar Awadh and 6 Others, Appeal No. 2 of 2012, Appellate Division, 15 April 2013. Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya v Independent Medical Legal Unit, Appeal No. 1 of 2011, 15 March 2012. Katabazi and 21 Others v Secretary General of the East African Community, Reference No. 1 of 2007, 1 November 2007. Samuel Mukira Mohochi v Attorney General of Uganda, Reference No. 5 of 2011, 17 May 2013. Attorney General of Rwanda v Plaxeda Rugumba, Appeal No. 1 of 2012, 1 June 2012. Checked 8 September 2026. The Coalition is reading these provisions and judgments, not advising on them, and a lawyer admitted in the region should settle how a particular case is framed. Sources: EAC Treaty (EALA text) · AG Uganda v Omar Awadh, Appeal No. 2 of 2012 · AG Kenya v IMLU, Appeal No. 1 of 2011 · Katabazi, Reference No. 1 of 2007 · Mohochi v AG Uganda, Reference No. 5 of 2011 · AG Rwanda v Plaxeda Rugumba, Appeal No. 1 of 2012
What the judgment is worth if you win.
Article 38(3) requires a Partner State to take the measures needed to implement a judgment “without delay”, and Article 33(2) gives the Court’s decisions precedence over national court decisions on the same matter. Article 44 provides for execution, but only of judgments imposing a pecuniary obligation, and only through the ordinary civil procedure of the state concerned. There is no body that monitors compliance and no sanction if a state ignores the Court. The Coalition could find no published figure for how often states comply.
Which complaint routes are open
The commission can order release, and there is a limit on the face of the Constitution.
Article 53(2) is quoted in full because the whole of this page turns on it:
“The commission may, if satisfied that there has been an infringement of a human right or freedom, order— (a) the release of a detained or restricted person; (b) payment of compensation; or (c) any other legal remedy or redress.” Source: Constitution of Uganda 1995, article 53(2) (Judiciary of Uganda)
Article 53(1) gives it the powers of a court: to issue summonses, to question any person, to require disclosure of information, and to commit persons for contempt of its orders. An appeal from an order lies to the High Court under article 53(3).
Article 53(4) is the limit:
“The commission shall not investigate— (a) any matter which is pending before a court or judicial tribunal; (b) a matter involving the relations or dealings between the Government and the Government of any foreign State or international organisation; or (c) a matter relating to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy.” Source: Constitution of Uganda 1995, article 53(4) (Judiciary of Uganda)
The Coalition sets that out because a transfer arrangement between Uganda and another government is capable of falling within paragraph (b), and a person relying on this page is entitled to know that before they write. The commission has not been asked to decide the point so far as the Coalition can establish. Whether the exclusion bites on a complaint about a person’s own detention, as opposed to a complaint about the arrangement itself, is not settled here and is not for this page to settle.
Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995, articles 51 to 58, read from the official text published by the Judiciary of Uganda, checked 8 September 2026. The Coalition sets out the text and does not interpret it. Source: Constitution of Uganda 1995 (Judiciary of Uganda)
Closed: individual complaint to the United Nations Committee against Torture.
Uganda acceded to the Convention against Torture on 3 November 1986. It made the declaration under article 21 on 19 December 2001, accepting inter-state communications, and conditioned it on reciprocity. It has never made the declaration under article 22. The article 21 declaration gives an individual nothing: it allows one state to complain about another, not a person to complain at all.
Closed: preventive inspection under the Optional Protocol.
Uganda is not a party to the Optional Protocol and has never signed it. The United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture has no mandate to visit Uganda, and no national preventive mechanism is owed. It is one of only two countries in this project in that position.
Closed: going to the African Court.
Uganda ratified the Protocol establishing the African Court on 16 February 2001 and deposited the instrument on 6 June 2001. It has never made the declaration under article 34(6), so neither an individual nor an organisation can file directly.
Where the Committee against Torture last said anything.
The Committee adopted concluding observations on 22 November 2022, CAT/C/UGA/CO/2. Unusually among the countries in this project, Uganda’s next report is not overdue: the third periodic report falls due on 25 November 2026, and the Committee issued a list of issues prior to reporting on 22 December 2025.
Whether the Uganda Human Rights Commission has ever been asked to order the release of a person transferred from another country, and what it did. Whether article 53(4)(b) has ever been applied to a transfer arrangement. Where the people transferred to Uganda are now, and under what status. Working contact details for the commission, since its own published numbers are malformed and do not match the government portal’s. Contact details for the Uganda Law Society, whose site the Coalition could not reach. And whether the International Committee of the Red Cross has seen anyone in this group among the 274 detainees it followed individually in 2025.
If you know any of these, the Coalition wants to hear from you.
The dated record
Every entry below is a fact with a source.
3 Nov 1986
Uganda accedes to the Convention against Torture, without the declaration that would allow an individual to complain to the Committee.
1995
The Constitution establishes the Uganda Human Rights Commission and gives it, at article 53(2), the power to order the release of a detained person.
16 Feb 2001
Uganda ratifies the Protocol establishing the African Court, without the declaration allowing individuals to file directly. The instrument is deposited on 6 June 2001.
19 Dec 2001
Uganda makes the declaration under article 21, accepting complaints from other states but not from individuals.
25 Nov 2022
The Committee against Torture adopts CAT/C/UGA/CO/2.
Jul 2025
The agreement was signed at Kampala on 29 July 2025 and entered into force on signature.
In U.T. v. Blanche the District Court for the District of Columbia certifies a class of people the government has sought to bar from protection on the basis that they can be removed under an Asylum Cooperative Agreement, and allows the agreements with Belize and Liberia to be added to the case. No merits ruling has issued. Source: U.T. v. Blanche, memorandum opinion, ECF 201, 21 September 2026
21 Sept 2026
New Lines Magazine reports that two of the eight have been granted asylum in Uganda, that five have been repatriated to their own countries, and that one fled to Kenya. Source: New Lines Magazine, 21 September 2026
Uganda’s third periodic report to the Committee against Torture falls due. It is not yet overdue.
Also a state engaging in refoulement
The record shows Uganda sending people transferred to it on toward the countries they fled, so Uganda is also listed in States Engaging in Refoulement, with what that listing rests on. This guide stays where it is.
Third Country Deportation Watch records a further practice that bears on that listing: “During a period spanning from late 2025 to early 2026, Uganda’s government no longer received and adjudicated asylum applications from Eritreans, Ethiopians and Somalis,” citing a shortfall of funding from UNHCR. People of those nationalities who tried to claim asylum in that period “were detained by Ugandan authorities rather than referred to the asylum procedure,” and “Some individuals from these nationalities were reportedly deported or subjected to non-voluntary returns to their countries of origin or to third countries during this period, raising serious concerns about refoulement.” The tracker’s source for the suspension is The Guardian of 4 December 2025. Sources: Third Country Deportation Watch, Uganda page (updated 30 July 2026) · The Guardian, 4 December 2025 (the tracker’s source)
Also a country people hold protection against
This page describes Uganda as a transit or temporary recipient: a state that agreed to take, or has taken, people removed from the United States who are not its nationals. Uganda also appears in a second project on this site, Countries Named in Protection Orders, because United States immigration judges protect people from being returned here: in fiscal year 2024 they granted asylum to 86 Ugandan nationals, on the immigration courts’ own figures. Sources: EOIR, asylum decisions by nationality, fiscal year 2024 · Coalition copy (PDF)
Those two facts sit together and are not in tension. A state can agree to receive people removed from somewhere else and at the same time be a state that other people cannot lawfully be sent back to. Nothing has been moved: this guide stays where it is.
Protection against return is granted to a person, not to a nationality. Nothing in this section says that people from this country are at risk as a class, and nothing in it should be filed as evidence in anyone’s individual case.
What is still being investigated
The Coalition publishes what it can source and says plainly what it cannot. The following is open on this page.
How many were transferred and when. The 2,823 figure and its underlying data. Whether any of the eight was detained in Uganda. The operating procedures under the agreement. Any US payment. Whether the Uganda Law Society challenge was ever filed.