Forced Migration in the OIC Member Countries:
Policy Framework Adopted by Host Countries
133
4,602 cases were submitted for consideration for resettlement. The United States has been the
primary destination for refugees resettled from Uganda in recent years, accepting 80 percent
of refugees between 2011 and 2016; Norway, Sweden, Canada, and Australia have accepted 3
to 5 percent of cases each.
3.4.2. Legal frameworks for forced migrants
Uganda is signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol, and the 1969
Organization of African Unity (OAU) Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee
Problems in Africa. Uganda’s 2006 Refugees Act expands on the 1951 Convention’s definition
of a refugee by adding persecution on the grounds of sex or failing to conform to gender-
discriminating practices, and incorporating the OAU Convention’s additional grounds of
fleeing external aggression, occupation, foreign domination, or events seriously disturbing
public order.17 In turn, the Act also grants temporary protection, reviewed every two years, to
a person who is part of a mass influx of asylum seekers instead of requiring individual status
determination. The 2006 Refugees Act replaced the much-criticized Control of Alien Refugees
Act of 1960 (CARA), which gave the Minister the ability to define which groups were
categorized as refugees (see Box 2).18
1 cific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa,
and Article 4 of The Refugees Act 2006, Parliament of Uganda,
18 Uganda: Control of Alien Refugees Act, Cap.64 of 1960, July 13, 1960,
and Refugee Law Project, Critique of The Refugees Act
(2006), accessed May 17, 2016
Box 3. The Control of Alien Refugees Act of 1960
The Control of Alien Refugees Act (CARA) was signed in 1960 and enacted in 1964, in
response to large inflows of refugees from its neighbors during the 1950s and 1960s.
The Act defined a refugee as “any person being one of a class of aliens declared by the
Minister by statutory instruments to be refugees.” The Act did not specify refugees’
rights, but instead focused on controlling refugee populations: limiting their freedom of
movement outside camps, and setting out grounds for confiscation of property, arrest,
detention, and return. Under CARA, the Minister had the power to define the class of
people declared to be refugees—thus, allowing for prima facie status but not individual
status determinations. Issuing a residence permit, however, was then at the discretion of
the authorized officer (who could refuse without giving a reason). Any refugee found
outside a refugee settlement without the authorization of the Director of Refugees was
guilty of an offence and subject to up to three months imprisonment and possible
deportation. The Director could order refugees to return to their country of nationality
or first asylum at any time.
CARA directly contravened aspects of the 1951 Convention and Protocol (ratified by
Uganda in 1976), the OAU Convention (signed in 1969 and ratified in 1987), the 1995
Constitution, and other national laws on criminal procedures. As a result, CARA was only
selectively applied; but the limitations of the Act led to an ad-hoc system of determining
refugee status and legal protections derived from treaties rather than national law.
Sources: Refugee Law Project (RLP), Critique of the Refugees Act (2006), accessed May 17, 2016,
Zachary Lomo, Angela
Naggaga, and Lucy Hovil, “The Phenomenon of Forced Migration in Uganda: An Overview of Policy and Practice in an
Historical Context,” Refugee Law Project Working Paper No. 1, June 2001,
and Uganda: Control of Alien Refugees Act, Cap.64
of 1960, July 13, 1960,