No Safe Way Home, No Secure Place To Stay: The Congolese Refugee Crisis Deepens
By FRANKLIN FRANCIS FREY
FOR Congolese refugees scattered across the Great Lakes Region, the search for safety is becoming an increasingly difficult journey with no clear destination. Back home, fighting and armed-group occupation continue to threaten civilians. Across neighbouring countries, meanwhile, humanitarian funding is declining, borders are tightening and authorities are imposing restrictions that make everyday survival more difficult.
The result is a growing humanitarian dilemma. Refugees cannot confidently return to communities where insecurity persists, yet their ability to remain safely in host countries is also under pressure.
Although the governments of Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) renewed their commitment in 2026 to voluntary, safe and dignified repatriation, the conditions required to achieve that goal remain uncertain.
The crisis has become more complicated because refugee movements are increasingly entangled with regional rivalries, armed-group activities and fears about national security.
Consequently, the people who need protection are often caught between competing political and military interests. Their rights, livelihoods and future prospects risk becoming secondary to the security calculations of governments and armed actors.
Eastern DRC’s conflict continues to drive displacement
The latest refugee emergency is rooted in the prolonged instability of eastern DRC.
For years, armed conflict and political tensions have uprooted communities across the region. However, M23’s capture of Goma and Bukavu in early 2025 intensified displacement and created new pressure on neighbouring countries.
By June 2026, the UNHCR counted approximately 1.25 million Congolese refugees and asylum seekers. About 80 per cent were living in countries neighbouring the DRC.
The movement of people across borders has continued on a substantial scale. More than 245,000 new arrivals were registered between January 2025 and April 2026.
Burundi has borne a particularly heavy burden. It received approximately 142,000 new arrivals, including some returning Burundians, as people fled fighting and insecurity following the capture of Bukavu in February 2025 and Uvira in December 2025.
The sudden increase has placed additional strain on the country’s already overburdened reception system.
Uganda has also received large numbers of displaced people. It hosts 53 per cent of the Congolese refugee population and registered more than 236,000 arrivals between 2022 and 2025.
Furthermore, the country has received approximately 139,500 South Sudanese refugees since 2022.
These figures highlight the scale of the regional challenge. Host countries must provide protection to growing displaced populations while managing pressure on public services, infrastructure and national resources.
Humanitarian assistance is shrinking when refugees need it most
The worsening displacement crisis coincides with declining international support.
Funding cuts have weakened humanitarian organisations’ ability to provide basic services, leaving refugees increasingly exposed to shortages in healthcare and other essential assistance.
In February 2026, the UNHCR disclosed that it had received only 20 per cent of the $35 million required for its lifesaving assistance programme in Burundi.
The shortfall threatens the organisation’s ability to respond adequately to the needs of displaced families.
Uganda’s refugee health response has also suffered. The International Rescue Committee warned in January that it had secured only six per cent of its required 2026 funding.
Consequently, it had to reduce health services for more than one million refugees.
Such cuts can have far-reaching consequences. Refugees often depend on humanitarian organisations for healthcare, shelter, food and other services that host communities may also struggle to provide.
When those services decline, vulnerable families face greater exposure to preventable illness, hunger and exploitation.
Moreover, deteriorating living conditions can influence decisions about repatriation. People who cannot obtain adequate assistance in host countries may feel compelled to return home even when security conditions remain uncertain.
That possibility raises a fundamental protection concern: a return cannot be considered genuinely voluntary if deprivation leaves refugees with no reasonable alternative.
Peace agreements promise return, but security conditions remain fragile
Diplomatic initiatives have repeatedly sought to resolve the refugee situation through repatriation.
In 2026, Rwanda and the DRC reaffirmed their commitment to voluntary, safe and dignified returns between the two countries.
The commitment draws on the 2025 Washington peace accords and the provisional agreement between the DRC government and the Alliance Fleuve Congo (AFC)/M23, now Front pour la Refondation de la Nation (FRN)/M23, under the Doha Process.
However, earlier peace arrangements failed to provide lasting solutions for displaced communities.
Continued fighting, renewed displacement and worsening conditions in host countries have undermined confidence in the prospect of safe return.
The UNHCR continues to advise against returns to South and North Kivu because of the security situation. It also cannot facilitate repatriation to areas under M23 control.
Despite these warnings, spontaneous returns have occurred.
Following the reopening of the Burundi-DRC border in February 2026, after M23’s retreat from Uvira, approximately 33,000 Congolese refugees returned to the DRC within a month.
Their movement illustrates the complicated choices refugees face. Some may believe that conditions have improved sufficiently for them to go home. Others may be responding to pressure created by inadequate assistance, restrictions or difficult living conditions in host countries.
Nevertheless, the number of people returning cannot by itself demonstrate that repatriation is safe or sustainable.
In Rwanda, more than 80 per cent of Congolese refugees have reportedly expressed willingness to return. Yet they continue to wait for conditions that would allow them to do so safely.
Armed groups & political interests complicate repatriation
The activities of M23 have further complicated the protection environment.
The group encourages spontaneous returns to territories under its control, describing those areas as post-conflict. However, its actions towards displaced civilians have raised questions about the safety of such movements.
When M23 captured Goma, it dismantled internally displaced persons camps, forcing hundreds of thousands of civilians to leave.
The group has also been linked to widespread violence against civilians, including Rwandan refugees.
Some refugees have reportedly been targeted over suspected connections to the Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda (FDLR) or Wazalendo, a network of community-based militias fighting M23.
Additionally, several Rwandan refugees have reportedly been forcibly transferred to Rwanda, with allegations that the UNHCR screening process was interfered with.
These developments create serious concerns about whether displaced people can make independent decisions about their movements without intimidation or coercion.
M23’s encouragement of returns has also fuelled suspicions that the movement could serve a broader strategy to consolidate rebel control and Rwandan influence in eastern DRC.
Such perceptions could undermine the reintegration of returning refugees and deepen divisions within local communities.
The situation is particularly sensitive because of longstanding disputes over the citizenship of Congolese Tutsi. Their perceived association with M23 and Rwanda could expose them to renewed suspicion and hostility.
Consequently, repatriation efforts must address not only physical security but also citizenship rights, community acceptance and the protection of people from discrimination.
A history of regional conflict fuels suspicion
The Great Lakes Region has experienced repeated waves of displacement arising from interconnected conflicts.
The 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda, the DRC’s regional wars and domestic conflicts in Burundi uprooted communities and forced many people into prolonged exile.
Over time, unresolved refugee situations became entangled with regional political and security disputes.
Armed groups, including M23, the FDLR and Burundian rebels, have exploited displacement grievances to justify their activities and mobilise support.
The UN Group of Experts has reported that militants recruit among refugee populations, including in camps in Rwanda and Uganda.
Such reports have increased fears of armed infiltration in host countries.
However, the presence of security concerns does not justify treating entire refugee populations as potential combatants. Refugees are civilians entitled to protection, and governments must distinguish individual security threats from the wider population seeking asylum.
Failure to maintain that distinction can deepen mistrust, increase discrimination and make peaceful solutions more difficult.
Border closures narrow the options for displaced people
Cross-border restrictions have become another obstacle to repatriation and refugee protection.
The land borders between Burundi and Rwanda were closed from 2015 to 2023 and have remained closed again since 2024.
These closures have disrupted movement and brought repatriation arrangements to a halt.
Burundi has also hardened its position towards people travelling from conflict-affected territories.
In October, Interior Minister Léonidas Ndaruzaniye announced that people coming from or transiting through M23-controlled areas would not be permitted to enter Burundi.
Uganda has introduced additional restrictions over Ebola concerns. Measures announced in the preceding month require Congolese travellers considered non-essential to return to the DRC.
Although authorities may present these restrictions as security or public-health measures, their consequences for people seeking protection could be severe.
Refugees may find themselves unable to cross borders to reach safety, reunite with relatives or access humanitarian assistance.
Furthermore, the restrictions could undermine Uganda’s open-door refugee policy, which has been an important part of its response to displacement from neighbouring countries.
Refugees encounter growing restrictions inside host countries
The tightening of regional policies is also affecting refugees after they arrive.
In Burundi, stricter encampment measures have restricted the movement and employment opportunities of Congolese refugees.
Reports indicate that police officers and members of the ruling party’s youth wing, the Imbonerakure, have detained some refugees before returning them to official sites in remote areas.
Banyamulenge refugees have faced heightened surveillance because of suspicions that they collaborate with M23.
In Rwanda, Congolese refugees generally have access to national services. Nevertheless, many remain dependent on humanitarian assistance and have reportedly experienced excessive force when protesting against their living conditions.
These experiences reveal the difference between formal protection commitments and the practical realities of refugee life.
Access to a host country does not automatically guarantee freedom of movement, employment opportunities, adequate services or protection from arbitrary treatment.
Therefore, governments must ensure that security policies do not become instruments for collective punishment or forced displacement.
Repatriation must not become an alternative to providing protection
The gap between diplomatic commitments and conditions on the ground requires urgent attention.
Peace processes have emphasised the return of refugees, but sustainable repatriation depends on whether people can return without facing violence, persecution or renewed displacement.
First, regional peace initiatives must place refugee rights at the centre of negotiations. Governments and international partners should strengthen diplomatic engagement and support independent monitoring of conditions in displacement locations and areas of return.
Monitoring should assess security, access to essential services, property rights and the ability of returnees to rebuild their livelihoods.
Second, regional solutions must address the interconnected situations of Congolese, Burundian and Rwandan refugees.
The region cannot resolve displacement through isolated national arrangements while armed groups and political tensions continue to operate across borders.
Refugees themselves must also participate in developing these solutions. Their experiences and priorities should inform decisions about repatriation, reintegration and protection.
Third, donors and host governments must maintain adequate humanitarian assistance.
International funding should support healthcare, shelter, food, education and livelihood programmes while refugees await safe and durable solutions.
Most importantly, assistance must remain available so that deteriorating living conditions do not force people to return to unsafe environments.
The Great Lakes Region needs protection before repatriation
The Congolese refugee crisis demonstrates how prolonged conflict can turn displacement into a regional problem that no single government can resolve.
For refugees, the choices are increasingly difficult. Continued fighting makes returning home dangerous, while shrinking aid and tighter restrictions undermine their ability to remain in host countries.
Although diplomatic agreements offer a framework for voluntary repatriation, those commitments cannot succeed without credible security guarantees and practical protection arrangements.
Regional governments must therefore balance legitimate security concerns with their obligations towards displaced civilians.
International donors, meanwhile, must recognise that humanitarian funding is not merely an emergency expense. It is an essential investment in stability, human dignity and the prevention of further displacement.
Ultimately, a sustainable solution must protect refugees whether they choose to return home or remain in exile until conditions improve.
Peace agreements will remain incomplete if they focus on territorial arrangements and political commitments while neglecting the people whose lives the conflict has disrupted.
The Great Lakes Region needs a protection framework that addresses insecurity, citizenship disputes, armed-group recruitment, humanitarian needs and the rights of displaced communities.
Without such an approach, refugees will continue to face the same painful dilemma: a home they cannot safely return to and host countries where the doors to protection are gradually closing.
