Uganda

The International Criminal Court confirmed 39 charges against Kony, paving the way for a trial if he is ever captured.

Judges at the International Criminal Court (ICC) have confirmed war crimes and crimes against humanity charges against Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony, nearly two decades after the court first issued a warrant for his arrest.

Kony, who remains at large, faces 39 charges, including murder, sexual enslavement and rape, making him the ICC’s longest-standing fugitive.

Judges from the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber III said there are “substantial grounds to believe that Mr Kony is criminally responsible for the crimes” committed in northern Uganda between 2002 and 2005, when he commanded the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA).

Besides crimes committed by his rebels, the judges said Kony could also be held responsible for 10 crimes he allegedly committed himself, linked to two women he forced to become his wives.

“Mr Kony issued standing orders to attack civilian settlements, kill and mistreat civilians, loot and destroy their property and abduct children and women to be integrated into the LRA,” the judges said in their ruling.

The ruling marks the first time the ICC has confirmed charges in a suspect’s absence, meaning the case can formally proceed to trial if Kony is ever captured. Under ICC rules, a full trial cannot begin without the defendant’s presence in court.

Prosecutors said efforts to track down and arrest Kony, now 64, are ongoing.

The ICC’s decision followed a three-day hearing in September in which prosecutors and victims’ lawyers presented evidence and testimony without Kony present – an unusual procedure that set the stage for Thursday’s ruling.

Years of investigations and witness accounts formed the basis of the decision.

Emerging from northern Uganda’s Acholi region in the late 1980s, Kony’s LRA combined Christian mysticism with an armed rebellion against President Yoweri Museveni’s government.

The United Nations estimates about 100,000 people were killed and 2.5 million displaced during the conflict.

Even after being pushed out of Uganda, LRA fighters launched deadly raids across South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic, burning villages, looting communities and abducting tens of thousands of children – the abducted boys forced to fight and girls forced into sexual slavery.

Kony came back into international focus in 2012 when a viral video about his crimes led to the #Kony2012 campaign on social media.

Despite the global attention and years of military operations to apprehend Kony, he remains at large.

Zohran Mamdani’s stunning victory in New York City’s mayoral race was built on a promise of hope and political change, a message that is resonating loudly with the people in Uganda, where he was born.

The 34-year-old leftist’s decisive win in the United States’ largest metropolis on Wednesday was celebrated by many in Uganda’s capital Kampala, the city where Mamdani was born in 1991.

For many Ugandans, the unlikely rise of Mamdani – a young Muslim with roots in Africa and South Asia – in the world’s most powerful democracy carries an inspirational message in a country where an authoritarian leader has been ruling since even before Mamdani was born.

Uganda’s 81-year-old President Yoweri Museveni is seeking a seventh term in January elections as he looks to extend his nearly 40-year rule. He has rejected calls to retire, leading to fears of a volatile political transition.

“It’s a big encouragement even to us here in Uganda that it’s possible,” Joel Ssenyonyi, a 38-year-old opposition leader in the Parliament of Uganda, told The Associated Press.

He said that while Ugandans, who are facing repressive political conditions, had “a long way to get there”, Mamdani’s success “inspires us”.

Mamdani left Uganda when he was five to follow his father, political theorist Mahmood Mamdani, to South Africa, and later moved to the US. He kept his Ugandan citizenship even after he became a naturalised US citizen in 2018, according to AP.

The family maintains a home in Kampala, to which they regularly return and visited earlier this year to celebrate Mamdani’s marriage.

‘We celebrate and draw strength’

While Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, has vowed to tackle inequality and push back against the xenophobic rhetoric of US President Donald Trump, opposition politicians in Uganda face different challenges.

Museveni has been cracking down on his opponents ahead of next year’s elections, as he has in the lead-up to previous polls.

In November last year, veteran opposition figure Kizza Besigye, who has stood against Museveni in four elections, and his aide, Obeid Lutale, were abducted in Nairobi, Kenya, before being arraigned in a military court in Kampala on treason charges. The pair have since repeatedly been denied bail, despite concerns raised by the United Nations’ human rights officials.

Other opposition figures have also faced crackdowns.

Tens of supporters of the National Unity Platform (NUP) party, led by 43-year-old entertainer Robert Kyagulanyi, popularly known as Bobi Wine, have been convicted by Uganda’s military courts for various offences.

“From Uganda, we celebrate and draw strength from your example as we work to build a country where every citizen can realise their grandest dreams regardless of means and background,” Wine wrote on X as he sent his “hearty congratulations” to Mamdani.

Robert Kabushenga, a retired Ugandan media executive who is friendly with the Mamdani family, told AP that Mamdani’s win was “a beacon of hope” for those fighting for change in Uganda, especially the younger generations.

Describing the new mayor-elect as belonging to “a tradition of very honest and clear thinkers who are willing to reimagine … politics”, Kabushenga said Mamdani’s victory underlined that “we should allow young people the opportunity to shape, and participate in, politics in a meaningful way”.

Okello Ogwang, an academic who once worked with Mamdani’s father at Kampala’s Makerere University, said his son’s success was an instructive reminder to Uganda “that we should invest in the youth”.

“He’s coming from here,” he said. “If we don’t invest in our youth, we are wasting our time.”

Anthony Kirabo, a 22-year-old psychology student at Makerere University, said Mamdani’s win “makes me feel good and proud of my country because it shows that Uganda can produce some good leaders”.

“Seeing Zohran up there, I feel like I can also make it,” he said.

Two buses travelling in opposite directions on the Kampala-Gulu Highway collided head-on while overtaking.

At least 63 people have been killed in a major road accident involving multiple vehicles on the highway between Uganda’s capital Kampala and the northern city of Gulu, police have said.

The collision took place just after midnight [21:00 GMT on Tuesday] and was caused by two buses coming from opposite directions trying to overtake a truck and a car.

“In the process, both buses met head-on during the overtaking manoeuvres,” the Uganda Police Force said in a statement on X. “Sixty-three people lost lives, all occupants from involved vehicles.”

The police added that “as investigations continue, we strongly urge all motorists to exercise maximum caution on the roads, especially avoiding dangerous and careless overtaking, which remains one of the leading causes of crashes in the country”.

Those travelling in the truck and the car were injured and taken to Kiryandongo Hospital and other nearby medical facilities, the statement said. It did not give further details on the number injured or the extent of their wounds.

The Kampala-Gulu Highway is one of Uganda’s busiest as it connects the capital with the biggest town in northern Uganda.

Yoweri Museveni urges supporters to back his vision for the future as he seeks to run for a record seventh term.

Uganda’s long-time President Yoweri Museveni has been confirmed to stand in the January 2026 elections, as he seeks to extend his nearly 40-year rule in the African country.

Museveni, who has been in power since 1986, on Tuesday urged supporters to back his vision for the future after electoral officials near the capital, Kampala, announced that the 81-year-old leader would be on the ballot.

The governing National Resistance Movement (NRM) party officially confirmed him in June as its presidential candidate.

In a post on X, Museveni thanked his supporters for entrusting him to run again for the 2026-2031 term.

“In this economy, the GDP of Uganda has doubled currently in the recent Kisanja from $34 billion to $66 billion,” he wrote. He has promised to make Uganda a $500bn economy in the next five years.

“You have everything today that you lacked in the past: electricity, roads, telephones, manpower, the educated people, and peace. That’s why we are being flooded by many investors because they are looking for a peaceful and profitable area where to invest,” he added.

In a list of pledges for the next term, Museveni said the party’s priorities would focus on wealth creation, education, infrastructure, crime, corruption, health and water.

Our priorities for this term include:

1. Wealth creation: Everybody should be involved in the money economy.
2. Education: All children in government primary and secondary schools should study for free.
3. Infrastructure: Roads should be tarmaced on time and maintain the… pic.twitter.com/KhDcNeyJaH

— Yoweri K Museveni (@KagutaMuseveni) September 23, 2025

Museveni came to power in 1986 after his NRM party waged a rebellion to depose the military regime of General Tito Okello.

After the NRM won the war, Museveni, the then-leader of the movement’s armed group, declared himself president. Since then, the president has been elected in subsequent elections.

In 2017, an amendment to the constitution removed the age limit for presidential candidates, which had been set at 75, allowing Museveni to continue ruling the country.

But the leader’s main political opponent, Bobi Wine, a former musician, is expected to be announced as a candidate in the upcoming election later this week.

During the 2021 elections, Wine secured 35 percent of the vote, with Museveni taking 58 percent in his worst-ever result.

While Wine accused Museveni of alleged voter fraud and ballot stuffing, his performance during the election placed him as the strongest challenger to Museveni’s rule.

Wine also has a large following among working-class communities in urban areas, with his National Unity Platform party holding the most seats of any opposition party in the national assembly.

Kony faces charges for the Lord’s Resistance Army campaign of torture and abuse in Uganda in the early 2000s.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is slated to hear evidence against fugitive Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony two decades after his Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) gained international infamy for atrocities in northern Uganda.

The Tuesday hearing, known as a “confirmation of charges”, is the Hague-based court’s first-ever held in absentia.

Kony faces 39 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection to the LRA’s campaign against the Ugandan government between 2002 and 2005, which prosecutors allege was rife with rape, torture, and abductions of children.

Kony has eluded law enforcement since the ICC first issued an indictment in 2005, making the hearing a litmus test for others in which arresting the suspect is considered a far-off prospect, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The hearing is expected to last three days and will allow prosecutors to outline their case in court, after which judges will decide whether to confirm the charges. Kony cannot be tried unless he is in ICC custody, however.

“Everything that happens at the ICC is precedent for the next case,” Michael Scharf, an international law professor at Case Western Reserve University, told The Associated Press news agency.

Kony was born in 1961 in northern Uganda’s village of Odek, where he was a Catholic altar boy and took up an interest in spirituality. He later claimed to be a spirit medium and used religious rituals – alongside violence and torture – to maintain control of followers.

The LRA’s attacks against the Ugandan government date back to the 1980s, but the group was not thrust into the international spotlight until 2012, when a #Kony2012 campaign went viral on social media.

By then, the LRA had been forced out of Uganda and was operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic and South Sudan, where it continued its violent crusade. The LRA’s activities killed at least 100,000 people and displaced about 2.5 million in Africa, according to the United Nations, along with the kidnapping of children.

Survivors in Uganda plan to follow the ICC proceedings, including Everlyn Ayo, a 39-year-old whose school was first attacked by LRA fighters when she was five years old.

“The rebels raided the school, killed and cooked our teachers in big drums and we were forced to eat their remains,” Ayo told the AFP news agency. “Many times, on our return to the village, we would find blood-soaked bodies. Seeing all that blood as a child traumatised my eyes.”

The ICC has been under heavy pressure from Washington for its pursuit of cases surrounding Israel’s war on Gaza.

United States President Donald Trump’s administration had previously sanctioned the ICC in response to its investigation and subsequent arrest warrants issued for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged war crimes committed in Gaza.

Last month, the US announced a new round of sanctions targeting members of the ICC, the latest instance of a pressure campaign against the court.

Attorneys for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said in a Friday letter that they intend to send Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the African nation of Eswatini after he expressed a fear of deportation to Uganda.

The letter from ICE to Abrego Garcia’s attorneys was earlier reported by Fox News. It states that his fear of persecution or torture in Uganda is “hard to take seriously, especially given that you have claimed (through your attorneys) that you fear persecution or torture in at least 22 different countries. … Nonetheless, we hereby notify you that your new country of removal is Eswatini.”

Human rights groups have documented violations and abuses in Uganda — as well as in Eswatini, a tiny African kingdom formerly known as Swaziland.

Eswatini’s government spokesperson told the Associated Press on Saturday that it had received no communication regarding Abrego Garcia’s transfer there.

The Salvadoran man lived in Maryland for more than a decade before he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador earlier this year. That set off a series of contentious court battles that have turned his case into a test of the limits of President Trump’s hard-line immigration policies.

Although Abrego Garcia immigrated to the U.S. illegally around 2011 as a teenager, he has an American wife and child. A 2019 immigration court order barred his deportation to his native El Salvador, finding he had a credible fear of threats from gangs there. He was deported anyway in March — in what a government attorney said was an administrative error — and held in the country’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, known as CECOT.

Facing a court order, the Trump administration returned him to the U.S. in June only to charge him with human smuggling based on a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee. Though that court case is ongoing, ICE now seeks to deport him again. Abrego Garcia, who denies the charges, is requesting asylum in the United States.

He was denied asylum in 2019 because his request came more than a year after he arrived in the U.S., his attorney Simon Sandoval-Mosenberg has said. Since he was deported and has now reentered the U.S., the attorney said, he is now eligible for asylum.

“If Mr. Abrego Garcia is allowed a fair trial in immigration court, there’s no way he’s not going to prevail on his claim,” he said in an emailed statement.

As part of his asylum claim, Abrego Garcia expressed a fear of deportation to Uganda and “nearly two dozen” other countries, according to an ICE court filing in opposition to reopening his asylum case. That Thursday filing also states that if the case is reopened, the 2019 order barring his deportation to El Salvador would become void and the government would pursue his removal to that country.

Loller writes for the Associated Press.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia ’s request for asylum in the United States is a prudent legal strategy, experts say, because it gives his lawyers better options for fighting the Trump administration’s efforts to deport him.

But it’s also a gamble. Depending on how the courts rule, Abrego Garcia could end up back inside the notorious El Salvador prison where he says he was beaten and psychologically tortured.

“It’s a strategic move,” Memphis-based immigration attorney Andrew Rankin said of the asylum request. “And it can certainly backfire. But it’s something I would do as well if I were representing him.”

Abrego Garcia, 30, became a focus of President Trump’s immigration crackdown when he was wrongfully deported to his native country in March. The administration is trying to deport him again.

Here are some things to know about his case:

‘You can’t win every case’

The administration deported Abrego Garcia to El Salvador because U.S. officials said he was an MS-13 gang member. It’s an allegation that Abrego Garcia denies and for which he wasn’t charged.

His removal to El Salvador violated a U.S. immigration judge’s ruling from 2019 that barred his deportation there. The judge found that Abrego Garcia faced credible threats from a local gang that had extorted from and terrorized his family.

Following a U.S. Supreme Court order, the administration returned him to the United States in June. But it was only to face human smuggling charges, which his lawyers have called preposterous and vindictive.

The administration has said it now intends to deport Abrego Garcia to Uganda. Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff and the main architect of Trump’s immigration policies, told reporters Friday that Garcia has “said he doesn’t want to go back to El Salvador.”

Miller said the administration is “honoring that request by providing him with an alternate place to live.”

In an effort to fight back, Abrego Garcia has notified the U.S. government that he fears being sent to Uganda, which has documented human rights abuses. He said he believes he could be persecuted, tortured or sent from there to El Salvador.

But even if he thwarts deportation to Uganda in immigration court, he probably will face attempts to remove him to another country and then another until the administration succeeds, Rankin said.

“By the law of averages, you can’t win every case,” the lawyer said. “The government has sunk its teeth far into what they’re doing with Kilmar and immigration in general, that it wouldn’t make any sense for them to just give up the fight.”

Taking a risk

Asylum, however, could end the fight.

The request would place the focus solely back on his native El Salvador, where Abrego Garcia has previously shown that he has a credible fear of gang persecution.

But he’s taking a risk by reopening his 2019 immigration case, Rankin said. If he loses the bid for asylum, an immigration judge could remove his protection from being returned to his native country.

That could place him back in the infamous Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECO, in El Salvador. It’s where, Abrego Garcia alleges in a lawsuit, he suffered severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation and psychological torture. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has denied those allegations.

Abrego Garcia had applied for asylum in 2019. The immigration judge denied his request because it came more than a year after Abrego Garcia had arrived in the U.S. He had fled to Maryland without documentation around 2011.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers will probably argue that he has the right to request asylum now because he has been in the U.S. for less than a year after being wrongfully deported to El Salvador, Rankin said.

If approved, asylum could provide him with a green card and a path to citizenship.

‘Not going to let this go’

Abrego Garcia’s asylum petition would go through the U.S. immigration court system, which is not part of the judiciary but an arm of the Department of Justice and under the Trump administration’s authority.

That’s where the risk comes in.

Abrego Garcia has a team of lawyers fighting for him, unlike many people who are facing deportation. And a federal judge is monitoring his immigration case.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys filed a federal lawsuit in Maryland to ensure he can exercise his constitutional rights to fight against deportation in immigration court.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis cannot rule on whether he gets asylum or is deported, but she said she will ensure his right to due process. His team says he is entitled to immigration court proceedings and appeals, including to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

“Even if he does manage to win asylum, the government is going to appeal,” Rankin said. “They’re not going to let this go. Why would they after they’ve invested months and months into this one guy?”

Rankin noted that if Abrego Garcia remains within the jurisdiction of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that court’s laws would govern his asylum claim. He said that court has been generally positive toward asylum claims and likely would give Abrego Garcia a “fair shake.”

Finley writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Luena Rodriguez-Feo Vileira in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose case has come to encapsulate much of President Trump’s hard-line immigration agenda, wants to seek asylum in the United States, his lawyers told a federal judge Wednesday.

Abrego Garcia, 30, was detained Monday by U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement in Baltimore after leaving a Tennessee jail on Friday. The Trump administration said it intends to deport him to the African country of Uganda.

Administration officials have said he’s part of the dangerous MS-13 gang, an allegation Abrego Garcia denies.

The Salvadoran national’s lawyers are fighting the deportation efforts in court, arguing he has the right to express fear of persecution and torture in Uganda. Abrego Garcia has also told immigration authorities he would prefer to be sent to Costa Rica if he must be removed from the U.S.

A request for asylum in 2019

A U.S. immigration judge denied his request for asylum in 2019 because he applied more than a year after he had fled to the U.S. He left El Salvador at the age of 16, around 2011, to join his brother, who had become a U.S. citizen and was living in Maryland.

Although he was denied asylum, the immigration judge did issue an order shielding Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he faced credible threats of violence from a gang there that had terrorized him and his family. He was granted a form of protection known as “withholding of removal,” which prohibits him from being sent to El Salvador but allows his deportation to another country.

Following the 2019 ruling, Abrego Garcia was released under federal supervision and continued to live with his American wife and children in Maryland. He checked in with ICE each year, received a federal work permit and was working as a sheet metal apprentice earlier this year, his lawyers have said.

But in March, the Trump administration deported Abrego Garcia to a notorious El Salvador prison, alleging he was a member of MS-13.

The allegation stems from a day in 2019 when Abrego Garcia sought work as a day laborer at a Home Depot in Maryland. Authorities had been told by a confidential informant that Abrego Garcia and other men could be identified as members of MS-13 because of their clothing and tattoos. He was detained by police, but Abrego Garcia was never charged — and has repeatedly denied the allegation. He was turned over to ICE and that’s when he applied for asylum for the first time.

Wrongful deportation and return

The Trump administration’s deportation of Abrego Garcia in March violated the immigration judge’s 2019 order barring his removal to El Salvador. Abrego Garcia’s wife sued to bring him back. Facing mounting pressure and a U.S. Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. in June, where he was charged with human smuggling, a federal offense.

Abrego Garcia is accused of taking money to transport people who were in the country illegally. He has pleaded not guilty and asked the judge to dismiss the case, saying it was filed to punish him for challenging his deportation.

The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee. There were nine passengers in the SUV and Abrego Garcia had $1,400 in cash on him. While officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling, he was allowed to drive away with only a warning.

A Homeland Security agent testified that he didn’t begin investigating until this April, when the government was facing mounting pressure to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. The trial is set for January.

A federal judge in Tennessee released Abrego Garcia from jail on Friday after ruling that he was not a flight risk or a danger. The Trump administration moved to deport Abrego Garcia again on Monday, alleging he is a danger.

Abrego Garcia then stated his intent to reopen his immigration case in Maryland and to seek asylum again, his lawyers said Wednesday. Asylum, as defined under U.S. law, provides a green card and a path to citizenship. Abrego Garcia can still challenge his deportation to Uganda, or any other country, on grounds that it is unsafe.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers say sending him to Uganda would be punishment for successfully fighting his deportation to El Salvador, refusing to plead guilty to the smuggling charges and for seeking release from jail in Tennessee.

Judge keeps Abrego Garcia in the U.S., for now

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have filed a federal lawsuit to ensure that he can exercise his constitutionally protected right to fight deportation. He is entitled to immigration court proceedings and appeals, his lawyers say.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland, who is overseeing the lawsuit, has ruled that the U.S. government cannot remove Abrego Garcia from the country as the lawsuit plays out.

Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign said the government disagrees with the court’s order not to remove him while the lawsuit is pending but that it will comply.

Xinis will not rule on whether Abrego Garcia receives asylum or is deported, but will determine whether he can exercise his right to contest deportation. His asylum case will be heard by a U.S. immigration judge, who is employed by the Department of Justice under the authority of the Trump administration.

The nation’s immigration courts have become a key focus of Trump’s hard-line immigration enforcement efforts. The president has fired more than 50 immigration judges since he returned to the White House in January.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have said he’ll be able to appeal immigration court rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Kunzelman and Finley write for the Associated Press. Finley reported from Norfolk, Va. AP writer Elliot Spagat contributed to this report.

BALTIMORE — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose case has become a flash point in President Trump’s aggressive effort to remove noncitizens from the U.S., was detained by immigration authorities in Baltimore on Monday to face renewed efforts to deport him after a brief period of freedom.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys quickly filed a lawsuit to fight his deportation until a court has heard his claim for protection, stating that the U.S. could place him in a country where “his safety cannot be assured.”

The lawsuit triggered a blanket court order that automatically pauses deportation efforts for two days. The order applies to immigrants in Maryland who are challenging their detention.

Within hours of Abrego Garcia’s detention, his lawyers spoke with Department of Justice attorneys and a federal judge in Maryland, who warned that Abrego Garcia cannot be removed from the U.S. “at this juncture” because he must be allowed to exercise his constitutional right to contest deportation.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis said that overlapping court orders temporarily prohibit the government from removing Abrego Garcia, and that she would extend her own temporary restraining order barring his deportation.

Drew Ensign, a Justice Department attorney, told the judge that he understands Abrego Garcia’s “removal is not imminent” and that the process often takes time.

Crowd yells ‘shame!’

Abrego Garcia, a 30-year-old Maryland construction worker and Salvadoran national, spoke at a rally before he turned himself in.

“This administration has hit us hard, but I want to tell you guys something: God is with us, and God will never leave us,” Abrego Garcia said, speaking through a interpreter. “God will bring justice to all the injustice we are suffering.”

About 200 people gathered, prayed and crowded around Abrego Garcia while he walked into the offices for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Baltimore, where he was detained. When his lawyer and wife walked out without him, the crowd yelled, “Shame!”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem posted on X that Abrego Garcia was being processed for deportation. U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi told Trump during a meeting in the Oval Office that Abrego Garcia “will no longer terrorize our country.”

Brief reunion with family

Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland for years with his American wife and children and worked in construction. He was wrongfully deported in March to a notorious prison in his native El Salvador because the Trump administration believed he was a member of the MS-13 gang, an allegation that Abrego Garcia denies.

His removal violated an immigration judge’s 2019 ruling that shielded him from deportation to his native country because he had “well-founded fear” of threats by a gang there.

Abrego Garcia’s wife sued to bring him back. Facing a U.S. Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned him in June. He was subsequently charged in Tennessee with human smuggling. He has pleaded not guilty and asked a judge to dismiss the case on ground of vindictive prosecution.

The allegations stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee for speeding. Abrego Garcia was driving with nine passengers in the car, and officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling. He was allowed to continue driving with a warning.

The Trump administration has said it wants to deport Abrego Garcia before his trial, alleging he is a danger to the community and an MS-13 gang member.

A federal judge in Tennessee determined that Abrego Garcia was not a flight risk or a danger. He was released from jail Friday afternoon and returned to his family in Maryland.

Video released by advocates of the reunion showed a room decorated with streamers, flowers and signs. He embraced loved ones and thanked them “for everything.”

What’s next?

Federal officials argue that Abrego Garcia can be deported because he came to the U.S. illegally and that the immigration judge’s 2019 ruling deemed him eligible for expulsion, just not to his native El Salvador.

Attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg told reporters Monday that Abrego Garcia is being held in a detention facility in Virginia. His lawyers don’t know when he’ll have a reasonable-fear interview, where he can express fears of persecution or torture in the country the U.S. wants to send him. Officials have said it’s Uganda.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have raised concerns about human rights abuses in Uganda as well as his limited ability to speak English in a country where that’s the national language. But there are also unanswered questions about whether he could be imprisoned or sent on to El Salvador. A judge blocked the U.S. from sending Abrego Garcia back in 2019 because he faces credible threats from gangs there.

Uganda recently agreed to take deportees from the U.S., provided they do not have criminal records and are not unaccompanied minors.

“We don’t know whether Uganda will even let him walk around freely in Kampala or whether he’ll be inside of a Ugandan jail cell, much less whether they are going to let him stay,” the attorney said.

If immigration officials determine that Abrego Garcia lacks a reasonable fear of being sent to Uganda, he should be able to ask a U.S. immigration judge to review that decision, Sandoval-Moshenberg said. And if the immigration judge upholds the determination, Abrego Garcia should be able to bring it to the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Sandoval-Moshenberg said that’s the process when someone is slated for deportation to their native country. And he said it should be for third-country deportations as well.

“This is all so very new and unprecedented. … We will see what the government’s position on that is,” he said.

Abrego Garcia informed ICE over the weekend that Costa Rica was an acceptable country of removal because he had “received assurances from Costa Rica that they would give him refugee status, that he would be at liberty in that country, and that he will not be re-deported onto El Salvador,” his lawyer said.

“Costa Rica is not justice,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said. “It is an acceptably less-bad option.”

The notice to ICE about Costa Rica was separate from an offer made by federal prosecutors in Tennessee to send Abrego Garcia to the Central American nation in exchange for pleading guilty to human smuggling charges. Abrego Garcia declined the proposal.

Witte, Loller, Kunzelman and Finley write for the Associated Press.

Aug. 23 (UPI) — A day after his release from custody, Kilmar Abrego Garcia faces the possibility of being deported to Uganda, lawyers for the El Salvadoran national said in a court filing Saturday.

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers claim the federal government is pushing their client to accept a guilty plea in relation to human trafficking charges in Tennessee, or face deportation to the African nation. He was born in El Salvador, immigrated to the United States as a teenager around 2011 and violated a 2019 court order that protected him from deportation.

On Friday, a federal magistrate judge released Abrego Garcia from custody while he awaits trial for the Tennessee incident.

He was then immediately ordered to report to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Baltimore.

The judge ordered the federal government to give the 30-year-old at least 72 hours notice before undertaking deportation proceedings to give his lawyers a chance to file a legal challenge.

“Despite having requested and received assurances from the government of Costa Rica that Mr. Abrego would be accepted there, within minutes of his release from pretrial custody, an ICE representative informed Mr. Abrego’s counsel that the government intended to deport Mr. Abrego to Uganda and ordered him to report to ICE’s Baltimore Field Office Monday,” lawyers said in their court filing.

“There can be only one interpretation of these events: the DOJ, DHS, and ICE are using their collective powers to force Mr. Abrego to choose between a guilty plea followed by relative safety, or rendition to Uganda, where his safety and liberty would be under threat.”

Abrego Garcia was initially deported to El Salvador this past March after federal officials accused him of being a member of the MS-13 gang and illegally entered the United States in 2011.

The move came amid President Donald Trump‘s crackdown on illegal immigration across the country.

The Trump administration later admitted Abrego Garcia’s deportation was due to an administrative error.

He was later returned to the United States after his case became national news, leading people to advocate for his repatriation, including Sen. Chris Van Hollen Jr., D-Md. Abrego Garcia lives in Baltimore with his wife and children.

He has been held in custody since returning to the United States in relation to the 2022 human trafficking charges in Tennessee.

Federal officials have promised to deport him to Costa Rica in exchange for a guilty plea, but have said that offer will be rescinded shortly if Abrego Garcia doesn’t make a deal.

Immigration officials in the United States say they intend to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda, according to a court filing, in what the man’s legal team describes as an act of “vindictiveness” by US President Donald Trump’s administration.

The court filing on Saturday said the idea of sending Abrego Garcia to Uganda came after he declined an offer to be deported to Costa Rica in exchange for remaining in jail and pleading guilty to human smuggling charges.

He has pleaded not guilty and asked the judge to dismiss the case, claiming that it is an attempt to punish him for challenging his deportation from the US to El Salvador earlier this year.

Abrego Garcia’s case has become a flashpoint in Trump’s hardline, anti-immigration agenda after the Salvadoran national was mistakenly deported in March.

Facing a court order, the Trump administration brought him back to the US in June, only to detain him on human smuggling charges.

The Costa Rica offer came late on Thursday, after it was clear that Abrego Garcia would likely be released from a Tennessee jail the following day.

Abrego Garcia declined to extend his stay in jail and was released on Friday to await trial in Maryland with his family.

Later that day, the US Department of Homeland Security notified his lawyers that he would be deported to Uganda and should report to immigration authorities on Monday.

“The government immediately responded to Mr Abrego’s release with outrage,” Saturday’s filing by Abrego Garcia’s lawyers reads.

“Despite having requested and received assurances from the government of Costa Rica that Mr Abrego would be accepted there, within minutes of his release from pretrial custody, an ICE representative informed Mr Abrego’s counsel that the government intended to deport Mr Abrego to Uganda and ordered him to report to ICE’s Baltimore Field Office Monday morning.”

The filing also accuses US officials of “using their collective powers to force Mr Abrego to choose between a guilty plea followed by relative safety, or rendition to Uganda, where his safety and liberty would be under threat”.

“It is difficult to imagine a path the government could have taken that would have better emphasized its vindictiveness,” it says.

Although Abrego Garcia was deemed eligible for pretrial release, he had remained in jail at the request of his lawyers, who feared the Trump administration could try to immediately deport him again if he were freed.

Those fears were somewhat allayed by a recent ruling in a separate case in Maryland, which requires immigration officials to allow Abrego Garcia time to mount a defence.

But Al Jazeera’s Rosiland Jordan, reporting from Washington, DC, on Saturday evening, said the latest developments have raised new fears that Abrego Garcia will be quickly deported once he reports to ICE officials on Monday.

“He and his lawyers argue there’s a very real fear that the US will once again ignore a judge’s order to basically leave him alone and put him on a plane and take him to another country – in this case, Uganda,” she said.

Questions on due process

Abrego Garcia had been living in the US under protected legal status since 2019, when a judge ruled he should not be deported because he could be harmed in his home country.

He then became one of more than 200 people sent to El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison as part of Trump’s crackdown on migrants and asylum seekers in the US.

But Department of Justice lawyers admitted that the Salvadoran citizen had been wrongly deported due to an “administrative error”.

Abrego Garcia – who denies any wrongdoing – now stands accused of involvement in smuggling undocumented migrants from Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras and other countries into the US between 2016 and earlier this year.

His trial in his human smuggling case is set to begin in January 2027.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said in a social media post on Saturday that “no matter what you think about Mr Abrego Garcia, if you believe in due process, you should be infuriated” by the effort to send him to Uganda.

“The Trump admin is threatening to dump him in Africa as punishment for not pleading guilty to criminal charges they brought to avoid complying with a court order,” Reichlin-Melnick wrote on X.

The Trump administration has defended its policies, saying the US president was elected on a promise to carry out the “largest deportation operation” in the country’s history.

But Washington’s push to deport people has drawn widespread criticism, with removals to third countries, in particular, fuelling fears that those being sent abroad could face human rights abuses and other dangers.

Last month, the Trump administration sent eight men to South Sudan, a country gripped by political instability and violence.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who’s at the center of an ongoing immigration feud with the Trump administration, faces the possibility of deportation to Uganda, just a day after being released from a Tennessee jail.

Court documents Saturday showed President Trump’s administration plans to deport Abrego Garcia to Uganda after he turned down an offer to be sent to Costa Rica if he pleaded guilty to human smuggling charges.

His case has attracted attention amid Trump’s immigration crackdown when he was mistakenly deported in March. Facing a court order, the Trump administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, only to detain him on human smuggling charges, which the Maryland resident denies.

Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, Abrego Garcia’s lead attorney in his lawsuit against the Trump administration, said in a statement Saturday that the government is trying to use the immigration system to punish his client by “attempting to send him halfway across the world, to a country with documented human rights abuses and where he does not even speak the language.”

Abrego Garcia’s attorney’s court filings show the administration requested he appear at an immigration facility in Baltimore on Monday and could be deported again.

In a statement Friday at his release, Abrego Garcia said he saw his family for the first time in more than five months.

“We are steps closer to justice, but justice has not been fully served,” he added.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem denounced the decision to free Abrego Garcia, stating that the administration will not stop fighting until he’s out of the U.S.

The Trump administration casts him as an MS-13 gang member and immigrant smuggler.

Abrego Garcia and his attorneys reject those claims. They portray him as a family man and construction worker who was arbitrarily deported and vindictively charged.

As his story takes yet another turn, here’s what to know:

The Costa Rica-Uganda offer

The Costa Rica offer came late Thursday and included a requirement that he remain in jail, according to a brief filed in Tennessee, where the criminal case was brought. After Abrego Garcia left jail Friday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement told his attorneys he would be deported to Uganda and should report to immigration authorities Monday.

Later Friday, the government told Abrego Garcia he has until first thing Monday to accept a plea in exchange for deportation to Costa Rica, or else that offer will be off the table, his defense attorneys wrote.

They declined to say whether he is still considering the offer.

Filed along with the court brief was a letter from the Costa Rican government stating that Abrego Garcia would be welcomed to that country as a legal immigrant and wouldn’t face the possibility of detention.

Justice Department spokesperson Chad Gilmartin responded to the brief with a statement saying, “A federal grand jury has charged Abrego Garcia with serious federal crimes … underscoring the clear danger this defendant presents to the community. This defendant can plead guilty and accept responsibility or stand trial before a jury. Either way, we will hold Abrego Garcia accountable and protect the American people.”

The Department of Homeland Security notified his attorneys that he should report to immigration authorities on Monday in Baltimore to face deportation.

Uganda has agreed to a deal to accept certain migrants being deported from the United States.

‘Well-founded fear’ of returning to El Salvador

Abrego Garcia, 30, grew up in El Salvador and fled at 16 because a local gang extorted from and terrorized his family, court records state. He traveled to Maryland, where his brother lives as a U.S. citizen, but was not authorized to stay.

Abrego Garcia found work in construction and met his future wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura. In 2018, he moved in with her and her two children after she became pregnant with their child.

In March 2019, Abrego Garcia went to a Home Depot seeking work as a laborer when he was detained by local police, court records state. He was suspected of being in MS-13, based on tattoos and clothing.

A criminal informant told police Abrego Garcia was in MS-13, court records state, but police did not charge him and turned him over to ICE.

A U.S. immigration judge denied Abrego Garcia’s subsequent asylum claim because more than a year had passed since his arrival. But the judge granted him protection from being deported to El Salvador, determining he had a “well-founded fear” of gang persecution there, court records state.

Abrego Garcia was released and placed under federal supervision. He received a federal work permit and checked in with ICE each year, his lawyers said.

‘Audacity to fight back’

In February, the Trump administration designated MS-13 a foreign terrorist organization. In March, it deported Abrego Garcia to a prison in El Salvador, violating the U.S. immigration judge’s 2019 order.

Abrego Garcia later claimed in court documents that he was beaten and psychologically tortured while held at the Terrorism Confinement Center, known as CECOT. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele denied the allegations.

The Trump administration described its violation of the immigration judge’s 2019 order as an administrative error. Trump and other officials reiterated claims that Abrego Garcia was in MS-13.

Vasquez Sura filed a lawsuit to bring her husband back. The Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. in June after a Supreme Court order. But it brought human smuggling charges against him.

The smuggling case stems from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding, during which Abrego Garcia was driving with nine passengers. Tennessee police suspected human smuggling, but allowed him to drive on and didn’t charge him.

Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty.

His lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the case based on “vindictive and selective prosecution.”

Deportation fears realized

U.S. Magistrate Barbara Holmes in Nashville ruled in June that Abrego Garcia has a right to be released from jail while he awaits trial.

But Abrego Garcia remained in a Tennessee jail at his attorneys’ request for about 11 weeks over fears that ICE would immediately try to deport him.

Thomas Giles, an assistant director for ICE, testified in July that Abrego Garcia would be detained as soon as he’s freed.

U.S. officials argued Abrego Garcia can be deported because he came to the U.S. illegally and because an immigration judge deemed him eligible for expulsion in 2019, just not to his native El Salvador.

Judge provides some protections

In response to concerns Abrego Garcia would be deported without due process, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis prohibited ICE from immediately detaining him upon release in Tennessee.

Xinis, overseeing the lawsuit in Maryland, ordered restrictions on ICE in late July. She required any removal proceedings begin in Baltimore.

Xinis also ordered that ICE provide three business days’ notice if it intends to initiate removal proceedings.

The Trump administration has “done little to assure the Court that, absent intervention, Abrego Garcia’s due process rights will be protected,” Xinis wrote.

Electronic monitoring and home detention

Soon after Xinis’ order, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys asked the federal judge in Tennessee to release him.

Holmes, the U.S. magistrate in Nashville, released him Friday, requiring Abrego Garcia to stay with his brother in Maryland and be subjected to electronic monitoring and home detention.

Finley and Catalini write for the Associated Press. AP writer Travis Loller in Nashville contributed to this report.

NASHVILLE — U.S. immigration officials said they intend to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda, after he declined an offer to be deported to Costa Rica in exchange for remaining in jail and pleading guilty to human smuggling charges, according to a Saturday court filing.

The Costa Rica offer came late Thursday, after it was clear that the Salvadoran national would probably be released from a Tennessee jail the next day. Abrego Garcia declined to extend his stay in jail and was released Friday to await trial in Maryland with his family. Later that day, the Department of Homeland Security notified his attorneys that he would be deported to Uganda and should report to immigration authorities Monday.

Abrego Garcia’s case became a high-profile story in President Trump’s immigration crackdown after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March. Facing a court order, the Trump administration brought him back to the U.S. in June, only to detain him on human smuggling charges.

He has pleaded not guilty and has asked the judge to dismiss the case, claiming that it is an attempt to punish him for challenging his deportation to El Salvador. The Saturday filing came as a supplement to that motion to dismiss, stating that the threat to deport him to Uganda is more proof that the prosecution is vindictive.

“The government immediately responded to Mr. Abrego’s release with outrage,” the filing reads. “Despite having requested and received assurances from the government of Costa Rica that Mr. Abrego would be accepted there, within minutes of his release from pretrial custody, an ICE representative informed Mr. Abrego’s counsel that the government intended to deport Mr. Abrego to Uganda and ordered him to report to ICE’s Baltimore Field Office Monday morning.”

Although Abrego Garcia was deemed eligible for pretrial release, he had remained in jail at the request of his attorneys, who feared the Republican administration could try to immediately deport him again if he were freed. Those fears were somewhat allayed by a recent ruling in a separate case in Maryland, which requires immigration officials to allow Abrego Garcia time to mount a defense.

Loller writes for the Associated Press.

Uganda is the latest of several countries to strike a deportation deal with the United States as President Donald Trump ramps up controversial efforts to remove migrants from the country.

In a statement on Thursday, Uganda’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that Kampala had agreed for Washington to send over third-country nationals who face deportation from the US, but are unwilling to return to their home countries. The ministry said that the agreement was made under certain conditions.

Rights groups and law experts have condemned Trump’s controversial plans to deport millions of undocumented migrants. Those already deported include convicted criminals and “uniquely barbaric monsters,” according to the White House.

African countries, such as Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland, have accepted similar deals, reportedly in exchange for lower tariffs. The US’s actions are exploitative and tantamount to treating the continent as a “dumping ground,” Melusi Simelane of the Southern Africa Litigation Centre (SALC) told Al Jazeera, adding that Washington was especially focusing on countries with weak human rights protection.

Here’s what you need to know about the Uganda deal and what countries might be getting in return for hosting US deportees:

What did Uganda agree to?

In a statement posted on X on Thursday, Bagiire Vincent Waiswa, the permanent secretary of Uganda’s Foreign Ministry, said the country had agreed to a “temporary arrangement” with the US. He did not state the timelines for when the deportations would begin or end.

There are caveats regarding the people who would be transferred, the statement continued, including that Uganda will not accept people with criminal records or unaccompanied minors and that it “prefers” that Africans be transferred as part of the deal.

“The two parties are working out the detailed modalities on how the agreement shall be implemented,” the statement added.

A US State Department statement confirmed that Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had held discussions over the phone regarding “migration, reciprocal trade, and commercial ties”.

The deal’s announcement came after weeks of speculation in local Ugandan media regarding whether the East African nation would accept US deportees.

On Wednesday, Foreign Affairs Minister Henry Okello Oryem denied the media reports, saying Uganda did not have the facilities to accommodate deportees.

Speaking to The Associated Press news agency, Oryem said Uganda was discussing issues of “visas, tariffs, sanctions and related issues” with the US, but not of migration.

“We are talking about cartels: people who are unwanted in their own countries. How can we integrate them into local communities in Uganda?” he told the AP.

A day later, Uganda’s narrative had flipped.

What might Uganda gain from this?

The Foreign Ministry’s statement on Thursday did not state what Uganda might be getting in return.

Other countries, including Eswatini, have reportedly accepted deportees in exchange for lower tariffs.

Uganda has been hit with 15 percent tariffs on goods entering the US, as part of Trump’s reciprocal tariff wars. Senior government officials in early August told local media that the tariffs would disrupt Ugandan exports, especially in the agricultural sector, and that Kampala would enter negotiations for a better deal.

Coffee, vanilla, cocoa beans and petroleum products are some of Uganda’s key exports to the US. Kampala is particularly keen on boosting coffee exports to the US and competing with bigger suppliers like Colombia. The US, on the other hand, exports machinery, such as aircraft parts, to Uganda, which imposes an 18 percent tariff on imported products.

The US and Uganda have historically enjoyed friendly ties, with the US routinely sending aid to Kampala. However, after Uganda passed an anti-homosexuality bill into law in 2023, relations turned sour, and the US accused Uganda of “human rights violations”. The law proscribes punishment, including life sentences, for same-sex relations.

Washington thereafter cut aid funding for HIV programs and issued visa restrictions on Ugandan government officials “complicit in undermining the democratic process.” The US also banned Uganda from the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a trade programme that helped African countries trade tariff-free with the US, but that Trump’s tariffs have effectively killed.

The World Bank additionally banned Uganda from its loans for two years, although the restriction was lifted this June.

Rights activists say the deal on deportees could make the US administration more favourably inclined towards Uganda, but at the expense of those deported.

“The proposed deal runs afoul of international law,” human rights lawyer Nicholas Opiyo told the AP. He added that such an arrangement leaves the legal status of deportees unclear as to whether they are refugees or prisoners.

“We are sacrificing human beings for political expediency; in this case, because Uganda wants to be in the good books of the United States,” Opiyo said.“That I can keep your prisoners if you pay me; how is that different from human trafficking?”

Does Uganda already host refugees?

Yes, Uganda is Africa’s largest refugee host country. It already hosts some 1.7 million refugees, largely from neighbouring South Sudan, Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which are all dealing with armed conflict and unrest.

The United Nations has, in the past, hailed the country as having a “progressive refugee policy” and “maintaining an open-door approach to asylum”.

However, opposition activists are sounding the alarm over the government’s dismal human rights record. Uganda has been ruled by Museveni since 1986, with his party winning contested elections in landslides. Opposition members and journalists are often targeted in arrests. Some report being tortured in detention.

Speaking to the AP, opposition lawmaker Muwada Nkunyingi said the US deal could give Museveni’s government further Western legitimacy ahead of general elections scheduled for January 2026.

The deal was struck to “clear their image now that we are heading into the 2026 elections,” Nkunyingi said. He urged the US not to ignore what he described as human rights issues in Uganda.

What other countries has the US sent people to?

Eswatini, Rwanda and South Sudan have struck similar agreements with the US.

Eswatini, in July, accepted five unnamed men from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba and Yemen.

Tricia McLaughlin, Department for Homeland Security assistant secretary, described them as “individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back”. She added that they were convicted of offences ranging from child rape to murder, and faced up to 25 years in jail. The men are presently held in detention facilities and will be sent back to their countries, according to officials who did not state a timeline.

Activists accuse the Eswatini government of engaging in the deal in exchange for lower tariffs from the US. The tiny country, which exports apparel, fruits, nuts and raw sugar to the US, was hit with a 10 percent tariff.

“No country should have to be engaged in the violation of international human rights laws, including breaching its domestic laws, to please the Global North in the name of trade,” Simulane of SALC, who is leading an ongoing court case challenging the Eswatini government’s decision, told Al Jazeera. The move, he said, was against the country’s constitution, which mandates that international agreements pass through parliament.

“What we want, at the core, is for the agreement to be published for public scrutiny, and for the public to understand (if) it indeed is in line with our national interest,” Simulane said. “We further want the agreement declared unconstitutional because it lacked parliamentary approval.”

South Africa, which borders Eswatini on three sides, summoned the smaller country’s diplomats earlier in August to raise security concerns about the arrangement.

Similarly, the US sent eight “barbaric” criminals to South Sudan in July. The DHS listed them as being from Cuba, Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos, Mexico and South Sudan. They were convicted of crimes such as first-degree murder, robbery, drug trafficking, and sexual assault, the DHS said.

The men were initially diverted to Djibouti for months pending a legal challenge in the US. However, in late June, the US Supreme Court approved the move to South Sudan.

Rwanda, too, has confirmed that it will take 250 deportees from the US at an unnamed date. According to government spokesperson Yolande Makolo, the deportees will enjoy “workforce training, health care and accommodation”. The country previously struck a controversial migrant deal for a fee with the United Kingdom. That deal, however, fell through when the new Labour government was elected in the UK in 2024.

Outside Africa, El Salvador has taken in 300 migrants, mainly from Venezuela, for a $6m fee.

Costa Rica accepted 200 asylum seekers from Afghanistan, China, Ghana, India and Vietnam. While many have been repatriated, some 28 people were still in detention by June. It is unclear what the US offered in return.

Nearly 300 people from countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and China were sent to Panama in February.

KAMPALA, Uganda — Uganda has agreed to a deal with the United States to take deported migrants as long as they don’t have criminal records and are not unaccompanied minors, the foreign ministry said Thursday.

The ministry said in a statement that the agreement had been concluded but that terms were still being worked out. It added that Uganda prefers that the migrants sent there be of African nationalities, but did not elaborate on what Uganda might get in return for accepting deportees.

The U.S. Embassy in Uganda declined to comment on what it called “diplomatic negotiations,” but said that diplomats were seeking to uphold President Trump’s “policy of keeping Americans safe.”

The Trump administration has been seeking ways to deter migrants from entering the country illegally and to deport those who already have done so, especially those with criminal records and including those who cannot easily be deported to their home country.

Human rights activists criticized the deportee deal as possibly going against international law.

Henry Okello Oryem, Uganda’s state minister for foreign affairs, on Wednesday had denied that any agreement on deportees had been reached, though he said his government was in discussions about “visas, tariffs, sanctions, and related issues.” He also suggested that his country would draw the line at accepting people associated with criminal groups.

“We are talking about cartels: people who are unwanted in their own countries. How can we integrate them into local communities in Uganda?” he said at the time.

Oryem and other Ugandan government officials declined to comment Thursday.

Opposition lawmaker Muwada Nkunyingi suggested that such a deal with the United States would give the Ugandan government legitimacy ahead of elections, and urged Washington not to turn a blind eye toward what he described as human rights and governance issues in Uganda.

Uganda’s leaders will rush into a deal to “clear their image now that we are heading into the 2026 elections,” Nkunyingi said.

Human rights lawyer Nicholas Opio likened a deportee deal to human trafficking, and said it would leave the status of the deportees unclear. “Are they refugees or prisoners?” he said.

“The proposed deal runs afoul of international law. We are sacrificing human beings for political expediency; in this case because Uganda wants to be in the good books of the United States,” he said. “That I can keep your prisoners if you pay me; how is that different from human trafficking?”

In July, the U.S. deported five men with criminal backgrounds to the southern African kingdom of Eswatini and sent eight more to South Sudan. The men from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Yemen and Vietnam sent to Eswatini are being held in solitary confinement until they can be deported to their home countries, which could take up to a year.

A legal challenge in the U.S had halted the deportation process of the eight men in South Sudan but a Supreme Court ruling eventually cleared the way for them to be sent to South Sudan.

Uganda has had challenges with the U.S. after lawmakers passed an anti-homosexuality bill in 2023 that punishes consensual same-sex conduct with penalties including life imprisonment. Washington threatened consequences and the World Bank withheld some funding.

In May 2024, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Uganda’s parliamentary speaker, her husband and several other officials over corruption and serious abuses of human rights.

Case has raised concerns among government critics about a crackdown ahead of Uganda’s national election early next year.

A Ugandan judge has refused to grant bail to veteran opposition figure Kizza Besigye, who has been in jail for nearly nine months on treason charges.

Judge Emmanuel Baguma said on Friday that the 180-day maximum period before mandatory bail is granted only began when he was remanded in the civilian court on February 21, which means he falls short by 12 days to meet the requirements to secure bail.

His lawyers argued he should be automatically released on bail because he has spent more than 180 days in jail without his trial starting.

The case has raised concerns among government critics, including opposition leader Bobi Wine and rights groups, about a crackdown ahead of Uganda’s national election early next year in which President Yoweri Museveni, 80, is seeking re-election.

The government denies targeting opposition figures and says all those who have been detained have committed crimes.

Four elections lost

A former ally and personal physician of Museveni, Besigye has stood against the incumbent leader in four elections.

He lost all the elections but rejected the results and alleged fraud and voter intimidation. Besigye has not said whether he is running again.

Besigye has been arrested numerous times over the years, including in 2022 on charges of inciting violence.

Besigye, who denies any wrongdoing, was forcefully returned to Uganda from neighbouring Kenya in November last year, and initially charged in a military tribunal, before his case was transferred to a civilian court.

Fighting between the armies of Uganda and neighbouring South Sudan, which are longtime allies, erupted this week over demarcations in disputed border regions, leading to the death of at least four soldiers, according to official reports from both sides.

Thousands of civilians have since been displaced in affected areas as people fled to safety amid the rare outbreak of violence.

A gunfight began on Monday and comes as South Sudan, one of the world’s youngest countries, is facing renewed violence due to fracturing within the government of President Salva Kiir that has led to fighting between South Sudanese troops and a rebel armed group.

Uganda has been pivotal in keeping that issue contained by deploying troops to assist Kiir’s forces. However, the latest conflict between the two countries’ armies is raising questions regarding the state of that alliance.

What has happened?

There are conflicting accounts of the events that began at about 4:25pm local time (13:25 GMT) on Monday, making it hard to pinpoint which side struck first.

The two agree on where the fighting took place, but each claims the site as being in its own territory.

Ugandan military spokesperson Major-General Felix Kulayigye told reporters on Wednesday that the fighting broke out when South Sudanese soldiers crossed into Ugandan territory in the state of West Nile and set up camp there. The South Sudanese soldiers refused to leave after being told to do so, Kulayigye said, resulting in the Ugandan side having “to apply force”.

A Ugandan soldier was killed in the skirmish that ensued, Kulayigye added, after which the Ugandan side retaliated and opened fire, killing three South Sudanese soldiers.

However, South Sudan military spokesperson Major-General Lul Ruai Koang said in a Facebook post earlier on Tuesday that armies of the “two sisterly republics” had exchanged fire on the South Sudanese side, in the Kajo Keji County of Central Equatoria state. Both sides suffered casualties, he said, without giving more details.

Wani Jackson Mule, a local leader in Kajo-Keji County, backed up this account in a Facebook post on Wednesday and added that Ugandan forces had launched a “surprise attack” on South Sudanese territory. Mule said local officials had counted the bodies of five South Sudanese officers.

Kajo-Keji County army commander Brigadier General Henry Buri, in the same statement as Mule, said the Ugandan forces had been “heavily armed with tanks and artillery”, and that they had targeted a joint security force unit stationed to protect civilians, who are often attacked by criminal groups in the area. The army general identified the deceased men as two South Sudanese soldiers, two police officers and one prison officer.

The fighting affected border villages and caused panic as people fled from the area, packing their belongings hurriedly on their backs, according to residents speaking to the media. Children were lost in the chaos. Photos on social media showed crowds gathered as local priests supervised the collection and transport of remains.

What is the border conflict about?

Uganda and South Sudan have previously clashed over demarcations along their joint border, although those events have been few and far between. As with the Monday clash, the fighting is often characterised by tension and violence. However, heavy artillery fighting, which occurred on Monday, is rare.

Problems at the border date back to the demarcations made during the British colonial era between Sudan, which South Sudan was once a part of, and Uganda. Despite setting up a joint demarcation committee (unknown when), the two countries have failed to agree on border points.

In November 2010, just months before an anticipated South Sudanese referendum on independence from Sudan, clashes erupted after the Ugandan government accused the Sudanese army of attacking Dengolo village in the West Nile district of Moyo on the Ugandan side in multiple raids, and of arresting Ugandan villagers who were accused of crossing the border to cut down timber.

A South Sudanese army spokesperson denied the allegations and suggested that the assailants could have been from the forestry commission. Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni and South Sudan’s Kiir met a few days later and pledged to finalise the border issue, but that did not happen.

Little was reported on the matter for several years after that, but in October 2020, two Ugandan soldiers and two South Sudanese soldiers were killed when the two sides attacked each other in Pogee, Magwi County of South Sudan, which connects to Gulu district of northern Uganda. The area includes disputed territory. Some reports claimed that three South Sudanese were killed. Each side blamed the other for starting the fight.

In September 2024, the Ugandan parliament urged the government to expedite the demarcation process, adding that the lack of clear borders was fuelling insecurity in parts of rural Uganda, and Ugandan forces could not effectively pursue criminal cattle rustling groups operating in the border area as a result.

Following the latest flare-up of violence this week, the countries have pledged to form a new joint committee to investigate the clashes, South Sudan military spokesperson, General Koang, said in a statement on Tuesday. The committee will also investigate any recurring issues along the border in a bid to resolve them, the statement read.

Why does Uganda provide military support to South Sudan’s President Kiir?

Uganda’s Museveni has been a staunch ally of South Sudan’s independence leader, Kiir, and his Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) party for many years.

Museveni supported South Sudan’s liberation war against Sudan, especially following alleged collusion between the former Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir and the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a rebel group originally formed in Uganda but which regularly attacks both Ugandan and South Sudanese locations in its efforts to overthrow the Ugandan government.

South Sudan gained independence from Sudan in January 2011. In 2013, Uganda sent troops to support Kiir after a civil war broke out in the new country.

Fighting had erupted between forces loyal to Kiir and those loyal to his longtime rival, Riek Machar, who was also Kiir’s deputy president pre and post independence, over allegations that Machar was planning a coup.

Ethnic differences between the two (Kiir is Dinka while Machar is Nuer) also added to the tensions. Machar fled the capital, Juba, to form his own Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO).

The SPLM and SPLM-IO fought for five years before reaching a peace agreement in August 2018. About 400,000 people were killed in the war. Uganda deployed troops to fight alongside Kiir’s SPLM, while the United Nations peacekeeping mission (UNMISS), which was in place following independence, worked to protect civilians.

This year, a power-sharing deal has unravelled, however, and fighting has again broken out between South Sudanese forces and the White Army, a Nuer armed group which the government alleges is backed by Machar, in Nasir County, in the northeast of the country.

In March, Uganda again deployed special forces to fight alongside Kiir’s forces as fears of another civil war mounted. Kiir ordered Machar to be placed under house arrest and also detained several of his allies in the government.

Are there concerns about Uganda’s influence in South Sudan?

Some South Sudanese who support Vice President Machar, who is still under house arrest, are opposed to Uganda’s deployment of troops in the country, and say Kampala is overreaching.

Since the Monday skirmish with Ugandan troops, some South Sudanese have taken to Facebook to rail against the army for not condemning alleged territorial violations by Ugandan soldiers, and mocked the spokesman, Koang, for describing the nations as “sisterly”.

“I wish the escalation would continue,” one poster wrote. “The reason why South Sudan is not peaceful is because of Uganda’s interference in our country’s affairs.”

“What did South Sudan expect when they cheaply sold their sovereignty to Uganda?” another commenter added.

Since joining forces to fight the rebel White Army, South Sudanese forces and the Ugandan Army have been accused by Machar and local authorities in Nasir State of using chemical weapons, namely barrel bombs containing a flammable liquid that they say has burned and killed civilians. Nicholas Haysom, head of the UN mission in South Sudan, confirmed that air strikes had been conducted with the bombs. However, Uganda has denied these allegations. The South Sudan army has not commented.

Forces local to Machar, including the White Army, have also been accused of targeting civilians. Dozens have died, and at least 100,000 have been displaced across northeastern South Sudan since March.

In May, Amnesty International said Uganda’s deployment and supply of arms to South Sudan violated a UN arms embargo on the country, which was part of the 2018 peace deal, and called on the UN Security Council to enforce the clause.

A UN mission says 43 worshippers were killed in the attack at a night mass in a church.

The armed group ISIL (ISIS) has claimed responsibility for a deadly attack that a United Nations mission says killed at least 43 worshippers during a night mass at a church in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

The attack, which took place at the church in Ituri province’s Komanda city, saw members of the ISIL-affiliated Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) killing people with guns and machetes, and taking captives.

ISIL said on its Telegram channel that rebels had killed some 45 churchgoers and burned dozens of homes and shops.

The UN mission known as MONUSCO said at least 43 people had been killed, including 19 women and nine children, and condemned the attack.

Pope Leo sent a message of condolences to the bereaved families and the Christian community who lost their relatives and friends in the assault, saying he would pray for them.

The Congolese government condemned the church attack as “horrific”, while the military described it as a “large-scale massacre” carried out in revenge for recent security operations targeting the ADF.

However, M23, another Congolese rebel group, backed by Rwanda, used the attack to accuse the government of “blatant incompetence” in attempts to protect citizens.

MONUSCO said the church killings will “exacerbate an already extremely worrying humanitarian situation in the province”.

The church attack on Sunday was the latest in a series of deadly ADF assaults on civilians, including an attack earlier this month when the group killed 66 people in Ituri province.

The attack happened on July 11, at about 1am (00:00 GMT) in the Irumu area, near the border with Uganda.

The ADF originates in neighbouring Uganda, but is now based in the mineral-rich eastern DRC. It mounts frequent attacks, further destabilising a region where many armed groups compete for influence and resources.

The ADF was formed by disparate small groups in Uganda in the late 1990s following alleged discontent with President Yoweri Museveni.

In 2002, following military assaults by Ugandan forces, the group moved its activities to the neighbouring DRC and has since been responsible for the killings of thousands of civilians. In 2019, it pledged allegiance to ISIL.

The ADF’s leadership says it is fighting to form a government in the East African country.

The DRC army has long struggled against the rebel group, and it is now also grappling with a complex web of attacks since renewed hostilities with the Rwanda-backed M23 rebels.

Kampala, Uganda – Rwanda is in “command and control” of M23 rebels in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda has “unilaterally doubled its military presence” in the DRC, and armed groups – including those aligned to the Congolese government – are committing rights violations against civilians, according to a group of United Nations experts.

An as-yet unpublished report from UN experts on DRC that was leaked to the media and seen by Al Jazeera describes violations by all parties to the conflict and blames neighbouring governments for allegedly exploiting and escalating the current crisis.

The report was submitted to the UN Security Council in May, the Reuters news agency reported. It is expected to be released soon, a UN expert who contributed to the report told Al Jazeera on condition of anonymity, without specifying a date.

While analysts see these reports as an essential tool of accountability, Kigali and Kampala have called the experts biased.

Neither government replied to Al Jazeera’s request for comment about the contents of the report, but both have repeatedly denied the accusations levelled against them.

Meanwhile, the new findings risk putting a damper on the cautious optimism garnered by the signing of a peace deal between Rwanda and the DRC in the US last month, and ongoing Qatar-mediated peace talks between Kinshasa and M23.

Rwanda’s ‘instruction’, control of resources

For years, M23, which the UN says is backed by Rwanda – a charge Kigali denies – has been embroiled in conflict with the Congolese army and its allied militias known as Wazalendo. Early this year, M23 made rapid advances, seizing control of Goma and Bukavu, the capitals of North Kivu and South Kivu, respectively, which it still holds today.

The latest UN experts report – the first since M23’s advance – offers a stark assessment of the conflict, placing blame on Rwanda for facilitating the rapid expansion of the rebel forces.

Rwanda is providing “critical support” to M23, which takes “instructions” from Rwanda’s government and intelligence services, said the report.

In previous reports, the UN experts found there were some 3,000-4,000 Rwandan troops fighting alongside M23 in the DRC.

“One week prior to the [M23] Goma attack, Rwandan officials confidentially informed the Group [of experts] that President Paul Kagame had decided to imminently take control of Goma and Bukavu,” the new report alleged.

Rwanda has repeatedly denied backing M23, while Kigali has sharply criticised the UN experts.

“These reports were written long ago,” President Paul Kagame said at a news conference in Kigali on July 4, after the contents of the report started circulating in international media.

“They come here just to confirm a narrative they already had,” the Rwandan leader said about the UN panel of experts.

Kagame likened the experts to an arsonist who torches a house but also acts as both judge and prosecutor. “The very ones who burned the [house] are the ones in the seat to judge and prosecute.”

The report by UN experts, however, only reasserted its criticism of Kigali.

The Rwandan army’s “de facto direction and effective control” over M23’s operations “render Rwanda liable for the actions” of the group, the report said, arguing that Rwanda’s conduct meets the threshold for international sanctions.

Last month’s US-brokered deal between the DRC and Rwanda does not include M23, but it stipulates that all parties should comply with the Qatar peace process. It also highlights that the Congolese government should facilitate the disengagement of the armed group, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), which was established by Hutus linked to the killings of Tutsis in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. Rwanda should then lift its “defensive measures” inside the DRC, the agreement said.

While Kigali has often argued that its actions in the DRC are aimed at addressing longstanding security threats posed by the FDLR, the UN experts assert that its actions went far beyond legitimate security concerns.

The experts noted that “the final objective of Kigali was to control the territory of the DRC and its natural resources.”

Their report details how minerals, including coltan, were looted from mines in towns seized by M23, then smuggled into Rwanda. “Once in Rwanda, the looted minerals were mixed with local production, effectively laundering them into the downstream supply chain under the guise of Rwandan origin,” the report said.

Part of the minerals smuggled to Rwanda were purchased by Boss Mining Solutions Inc, represented by Eddy Habimana, who has previously been implicated in the illegal trafficking of minerals from the DRC, the report added.

Beyond Rwanda, the report also outlines violations of international law by another neighbour, Uganda.

Amid the Rwanda/M23–DRC fighting, there was a “rapid military build-up” by the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) in North Kivu and Ituri provinces, the report said.

Troops significantly increased this year “effectively doubling Uganda’s footprint in the country”, it added.

The Ugandan army, which has conducted joint operations with the Congolese military against the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), a rebel movement with origins in Uganda, since 2023, “unilaterally” increased its troop presence in eastern DRC, the report added.

“The DRC government confirmed that the new UPDF deployment was executed without its prior approval, and that UPDF was undertaking unilateral initiatives outside the framework of joint operations with the [Congolese army],” the report read.

The deployment, according to the panel of experts, raised questions about Kampala’s motives, particularly given past allegations of UPDF support to M23. While Uganda claimed the troop movements were defensive and aimed at securing its economic interests, the report says their positioning created a de facto buffer zone that shielded M23 from northern counterattacks.

In response, Uganda’s ambassador to the UN, Adonia Ayebare, wrote on X that the report “contains falsehoods” and attempts to undermine the joint military operation with the DRC. He said Uganda will make an official statement after publication of the report.

​​General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, Uganda’s army commander also posted on X, saying: “While the UN so called ‘Group of Experts’ writes biased reports against us, we (UPDF) continue to save the lives of human beings in our region.”

The report by the UN experts had called out “repeated incendiary public statements” by Kainerugaba in which they said he emphasised close cooperation between the UPDF and the Rwandan army.

The report also accused Thomas Lubanga, a former ICC convict living in Kampala, of forming a politico-military movement to oppose the Congolese government, “with at least moral and passive endorsement from the Ugandan authorities”.

However, addressing journalists in Kampala on July 16, Lubanga said he is in forced exile because of persecution by Kinshasa, and if his movement had been receiving support from Uganda, it “would find itself on Kinshasa’s doorstep today”.

Ugandan, Rwandan interests in DRC

Kristof Titeca, a professor at the University of Antwerp who recently published a report on Uganda’s operations in DRC, urges readers to view the UN report and the backlash it has provoked in the context of regional dynamics.

Kigali and Kampala share overlapping interests in the DRC – chiefly concerning security, political influence, and economic access – but these interests also place them in a complex relationship of both cooperation and competition, he said.

Titeca argues that the resurgence and rapid expansion of M23 was, in part, triggered by Kigali’s fear that Kampala might encroach on its influence in eastern DRC after Uganda allowed its soldiers to enter DRC in pursuit of the ADF.

As M23 gained ground towards the end of 2024, Uganda reacted with troop deployments, particularly aimed at preventing the rebels – and by extension, Rwanda – from entering areas it sees as its sphere of interest.

Titeca says the military manoeuvres were as much a strategic message to Rwanda as they were about protecting Ugandan interests.

Drawing from movements and postures observed since late 2024, Titeca suggests that Kigali and Kampala may have an implicit understanding of their respective zones of influence.

“Some people think there might be some agreement between Kampala and Kigali on their area of interest,” he said.

In eastern DRC, “they are friends and also enemies at the same time,” he added, referring to Uganda and Rwanda.

Kinshasa’s violations

For the UN experts, Kinshasa bears some responsibility, too. On the Congolese side, the report paints a picture of a state under siege, struggling to maintain sovereignty over its eastern territories.

The government continued to rely heavily on irregular Wazalendo groups, and on the FDLR, despite the latter being under UN sanctions, as proxies in its fight against M23 and the Rwandan army.

While strategic, the report says, this alliance has worsened the security and human rights situation, contributing to reprisal attacks, child recruitment and sexual violence.

As it called out M23’s actions during the taking of Goma and Bukavu, the report also documented a pattern of grave international humanitarian law and rights violations – including looting, sexual violence, and killings – by retreating Congolese soldiers and Wazalendo fighters at the same time.

“These abuses occurred in a climate of impunity, in the general context of a weakening chain of command,” it said.

Al Jazeera sought a response to these claims from the Congolese government, but received no reply.

In dismissing the report, the Rwandan president accused the panel of perpetuating a biased narrative against Kigali and of ignoring Congolese government complicity with the FDLR, which he says continues to spread anti-Tutsi views that led to the 1994 genocide.

“All the reports, 75 percent of them, blame AFC/M23 and Rwanda,” Kagame said at the July 4 news conference. “You will find they never write anything comprehensive about FDLR or how Congolese institutions spread hate and genocide ideology. How can experts not see that?”

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Rwandan analyst Thierry Gatete echoed Kagame’s criticisms, questioning the credibility of the UN panel and alleging that they rarely conduct field research.

“They sit in New York or Paris and rely on testimonies from Congolese officials or FDLR sympathisers,” he said.

The report notes that Rwanda denied the group of experts access to Kigali. However, Gatete says Rwanda initially cooperated with the panel but later gave up because the reports were consistently biased and, in his view, inconsequential. “Nobody takes what they write seriously,” he said.

While Rwanda and Uganda view the UN reports as biased, others see them as essential tools for accountability.

Stewart Muhindo, a researcher with Congolese civil society group LUCHA, said the panel provides critical evidence that challenges both state and non-state actors.

“The panel tells hard truths,” he noted, pointing out that the report also criticises the DRC government for its continued collaboration with the FDLR, despite promises to end the alliance. “It’s not just about blaming Rwanda.”

Muhindo also agrees with UN experts that the DRC’s reliance on Wazalendo fighters has exacerbated the humanitarian crisis. These irregular forces, though not sanctioned like the FDLR, have been implicated in atrocities, including attacks on civilians and the recruitment of child soldiers, he said.

“Despite ongoing peacemaking initiatives, efforts to stabilise the region continue to face significant challenges,” the UN experts said in the report. “Civilians bore the brunt of the conflict, enduring widespread displacement, insecurity, and grave violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.”