The Future of Uganda’s Generous Refugee System: Is it Following the Same Path as Tanzania in the Past?

As Uganda’s renowned refugee system faces new challenges as a result of tighter controls and more restrictive policies, scholars are beginning to draw parallels between Uganda’s current asylum policy and Tanzania’s formerly progressive asylum policies.

Over the years, Uganda has gained recognition for its innovative, progressive refugee system. This system reflects its Pan-African solidarity and the aim of its president, Yoweri Museveni, to secure international support and recognition for its work in assisting refugees (Drewski & Jürgen, 2024). Despite Uganda’s achievements in the integration and self-sufficiency of refugees, many challenges remain due to tighter controls and more restrictive practices. Some experts point out that this approach is a possible reversal from its previous approach and the breaking down of the progressive asylum system (Boru & Wood, 2026).

This report offers a comparative analysis with Tanzania, which was one of the first countries in East Africa to adopt open-door progressive asylum policies before shifting towards repressive, restrictive policies in the 1990s. Will Uganda follow a similar trajectory to Tanzania, gradually moving away from its model of openness and inclusion as structural constraints intensify?

Tanzania as a Refugee Hosting Country

In the 1960s, after the proclamation of its independence and the end of Julius Nyerere’s presidency, Tanzania became a role model for African countries due to its generous asylum model. It was one of the first nations to adopt ACNUR’s Global Compact for Refugees and the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework. These actions began a shift in which Tanzania began to turn away from short-term assistance and implement strategies that fostered integration and recognized refugees as active agents within host communities (Ruzibiza & Turner, 2024).

However, in the 1990s, this asylum policy changed. Due to a massive influx of refugees who emigrated to Tanzania as a result of conflicts, such as the Rwandan genocide (1994) and the Congolese wars (1997), and a decline in international donor support, the Tanzanian government shifted away from progressive refugee policy frameworks by withdrawing from the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework in 2018. In addition, it returned to adopting closed settlements and increasingly restrictive policies, framing refugees as a national security threat and a socio-economic burden while isolating them from their host communities (Ruzibiza & Turner, 2024).

This increasingly restrictive policy becomes particularly evident when examining the effects of conflicts in neighbouring countries on Tanzania. For instance, despite the large displacement crises in Mozambique, where the current violence and unrest in Cabo Delgado have forced thousands to flee, authorities in Tanzania have reinforced the border controls in the South. They have tightened border control so much that they do not allow refugees to enter the country and send them back to their native countries (Kolumbia, 2025). 

The fieldwork done by the Copenhagen Business School (Ruzibiza & Turner, 2024), which is based on interviews with refugees, migrants, host communities, and local actors in border areas of Tanzania, such as Kigoma, also illustrates this reversal by highlighting Tanzania’s increasingly restrictive policies. In particular, interviews with Burundian refugees reflect the constraints of the encampment system, limited freedom of movement, and growing uncertainty linked to the pressure to return. This further demonstrates the shift away from Tanzania’s historically open and integrative asylum approach. The reversal can be directly observed in Figure 1, which shows that the number of refugees arriving in Tanzania has been rapidly decreasing since 2000 and is at low levels today.

Context, Evolution, and Current Challenges of Uganda’s Refugee System

Uganda is a country that may be following a similar path to Tanzania but a bit later. In the late 1970s and 1980s, Uganda started to develop an inclusive model of asylum known as the “open-door policy” or “self-reliance strategy“, which was implemented in Tanzania.

As observed in Figure 1, in 2013, Uganda began to experience an unprecedented mass influx of refugees, which has intensified over time and continues today as a result of the presence of conflicts in neighbouring countries, particularly in South Sudan and in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Due to the growing number of refugees in protracted situations, Uganda decided to implement an open-door policy. Instead of limiting refugees to closed settlements, Ugandan politicians created open settlements across the country, providing refugees with plots of arable land and granting them access to essential services, such as health, education, and employment. Additionally, they gave them the right to freedom of movement throughout the territory, which was similar to what Tanzania did in the 60s. These measures aimed to not only enable refugees to gradually achieve dignified, self-sufficient lives without relying solely on humanitarian assistance, but also to allow them to actively contribute to the country’s long-term sustainable development. In this way, this policy served as a win-win solution to both refugees and the Ugandan economy (Titeca, 2021; Easton-Calabria & Omata, 2018).

This model was progressively consolidated through a process of legislative reforms that aimed to end previous restrictive policies. Additionally, it culminated in the adoption of the Refugees Act in 2006, Refugee Regulations in 2010, and the adoption of both a national plan and the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework in 2016. These reforms followed the international standards of the 2016 New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants as well as the Global Compact for Refugees.

Despite Uganda’s achievements in the integration and self-sufficiency of refugees, it faces many challenges. An analysis of the latest multisector needs-assessment data from IMPACT-REACH (2024) reveals that the most significant challenges in rural settlements are food insecurity and lack of income. These problems are particularly problematic in Bidibidi and Adjumani. The second most pressing challenges are inadequate healthcare and education. In Kampala, the main issues of its residents are insufficient income and lack of adequate housing. The data on ODA levels, as observed in Figure 2 (OECD, 2024), suggests a massive drop in international humanitarian assistance directed to Uganda, which is similar to the funding declines Tanzania faced in the past. This reduction in external support makes it increasingly difficult to maintain Uganda’s historically generous refugee policy at a time when arrivals are significantly increasing due to ongoing conflicts. 

This reversal is further supported by Refugees International (2024), which shows that Uganda’s asylum system is under increasing structural strain. Based on interviews with refugees, humanitarian actors, and government officials, they show how rapid population growth, declining donor support, and the structural limits of land-based self-reliance are undermining the sustainability of the model. Land-based self-reliance is particularly troublesome due to resulting climate hazards and exploitation, particularly in rural settlements where land scarcity constrains agricultural livelihoods This combination of shrinking financial assistance, growing refugee inflows, and increasing pressure on local resources is contributing to tighter controls and more restrictive practices in some areas, reinforcing a broader regional trend towards the gradual securitisation and containment of refugee populations.

Furthermore, Uganda’s political context, as directly observed in the past January 2026 elections, point towards a reduction in the long-term policy of openness and external accountability (CSIS, 2025). This makes it more difficult for it to maintain this open-door refugee policy. This trend is further reinforced by increasing restrictions on LGBTIQ+ populations, particularly following the 2023 Anti-Homosexuality Act, which has significantly worsened conditions for LGBTQ+ refugees and asylum seekers. Additionally, reports indicate that this law has increased the risks within refugee settlements as well as limited their freedom and safety, undermining Uganda’s reputation as a progressive host country (The New Humanitarian, 2023).

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

Throughout this article, we have briefly analysed the evolution of the asylum systems in Tanzania and Uganda. These countries share a similar policy trajectory, going from openness and generosity towards closure and authoritative refugee policies. However, due to each country’s specific socioeconomic and political characteristics, it is difficult to know if Uganda will follow the same path as Tanzania had followed in the past.

Currently, both Uganda and Tanzania have increased pressure on their refugee governance systems. Nevertheless, even if some converging tendencies are visible, each country has its own path. Since some years back, Tanzania represents a clearer policy reversal from an earlier open-door and integrative model towards a more explicitly restrictive, securitised regime that is characterised by encampment, limited mobility, tighter border control, and a stronger emphasis on repatriation (CBS, 2024; The Citizen, 2024). Uganda, in contrast, still formally maintains one of the most progressive refugee frameworks globally. But as we have analysed, this model is increasingly under structural pressures due to funding cuts, land scarcity, and rising refugee numbers (IMPACT-REACH, 2024; OECD, 2025; Refugees International, 2024). As a result, rather than a direct convergence towards Tanzania’s restrictive model, we believe that Uganda appears to be undergoing a gradual internal erosion of its inclusive approach, but without an explicit abandonment of its policy principles. This is not merely normative, but also strategic: the Ugandan government has continued to promote its progressive refugee policy as a tool to legitimise its rule internationally and secure external support. In this way, it is using its open-door approach as a key element of its global reputation and diplomatic positioning (Titeca, 2021).

In conclusion, both systems are being reshaped by similar structural pressures, such as declining international donor support, protracted displacement, increasingly authoritative government policies, and resource constraints. We recommend performing a specific analysis of each country to adapt projects and address systemic vulnerabilities. Additionally, asylum programs and refugee policy strategies should focus on enhancing local sustainability, equitable burden-sharing, and realistic land and livelihood strategies to prevent a further erosion of protection standards across the region.

Bibliography

• Drewski, D. and Gerhards, J. (2024) ‘Pan-African solidarity and international reputation: Uganda’s policy of open doors toward refugees’, in Framing Refugees: How the Admission of Refugees is Debated in Six Countries across the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198904724.003.0007 (Accessed: 5 May 2026) 
• Easton-Calabria, E. and Omata, N. (2018) ‘Panacea for the refugee crisis? Rethinking the promotion of “self-reliance” for refugees’, Third World Quarterly, 39(8), pp. 1458–1474. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2018.1458301 (Accessed: 10 May 2026). 
• Gidron, Y. and Titeca, K. (2025) Will Uganda’s ‘open-door’ refugee policy hold? Aid cuts and rising anti-immigration sentiments. Brussels: Egmont Institute. Available at: https://egmontinstitute.be/app/uploads/2025/12/Yotam_GidronKristof-Titeca-3.pdf?type=pdf (Accessed: 27 May 2026).
• Hudson, C. (2025) Uganda’s 2026 elections: rising authoritarianism and declining U.S. engagement. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 16 September. Available at: https://www.csis.org/analysis/ugandas-2026-elections-rising-authoritarianism-and-declining-us-engagement (Accessed: 27 May 2026). 
• OECD data explorer (2024). Official Development Assistance. Available at: https://data-explorer.oecd.org/ (Accessed: May 29).
• Kolumbia, L. (2025) Tanzania’s southern border ‘secure’ as thousands flee Mozambique. The Citizen, 4 January. Available at: https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/tanzania/news/national/tanzania-s-southern-border-secure-as-thousands-flee-mozambique-4877574 (Accessed: 17 May, 2026)
• Refugees International (2026) Uganda’s generous open-door refugee policy is breaking down. Available at: https://www.refugeesinternational.org/ugandas-generous-open-door-refugee-policy-is-breaking-down/ (Accessed: 29 May 2026).
• Ruzibiza, Y. and Turner, S. (2024) Tanzania’s open door to refugees narrows. Copenhagen Business School. Available at: https://cbds.cbs.dk/tanzanias-open-door-to-refugees-narrows/ (Accessed: 27 May 2026). 
• The New Humanitarian (2023) Uganda’s anti-gay law has turned camps into prisons for LGBTQ+ asylum seekers. Available at: https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2023/09/27/uganda-anti-gay-lgbtq-refugee-camps-asylum-seeker (Accessed: 29 May 2026). 
• Titeca, K. (2021) Who depends on whom? Uganda’s refugee ‘success story’, corruption and the international community. Antwerp: University of Antwerp. Available at: https://www.refugeesinternational.org/ugandas-generous-open-door-refugee-policy-is-breaking-down/ (Accessed: 10 May 2026).
• UNHCR (2025). Refugee Data Finder [Data set]. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/refugee-statistics/download?data-finder  (Accessed: 10 May 2026).