World Bank Resumes Funding to Uganda After Freeze Over Anti‑LGBT Law
KAMPALA, Uganda
Nearly two years after suspending fresh lending over Uganda’s contentious Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), the World Bank has announced the resumption of new funding, citing mitigation measures as sufficient to resume partnership. The move marks a major shift in Uganda’s development financing landscape amid rights concerns.
Background: The Freeze & Its Rationale
In August 2023, the World Bank halted new financing to Uganda shortly after Parliament passed the AHA. The Bank stated that the law — which included harsh punitive measures for homosexual acts (including life imprisonment and death penalty in aggravated cases) — conflicted with its principles of inclusion and non-discrimination.
The freeze was symbolic and practical: Uganda lost access to fresh funding windows for new projects, though ongoing projects continued under conditions.
What Changed: Mitigation & Safeguards
Over the intervening period, Uganda and the World Bank engaged in consultations and risk assessments. Uganda committed to implementing safeguards, grievance mechanisms, and inclusive oversight frameworks to ensure that Bank‑funded projects would not discriminate or harm LGBTQ+ persons.
The Bank has now declared these mitigation efforts “satisfactory” and approved three new projects focused on social protection, education, and support for displaced persons / refugees.
Scope & Impact of New Projects
These newly approved projects aim to address vulnerable populations, expand educational access, and strengthen refugee and displacement response mechanisms.
The resumption unlocks previously stalled development opportunities, especially in infrastructure, social welfare, and human capital sectors.
For Uganda, access to new funding may help close gaps in service delivery, support economic recovery, and boost investor confidence.
⚖ Tensions & Criticism
Human rights defenders remain cautious: resuming funding without a full repeal of the AHA risks being seen as tacit endorsement of Uganda’s repressive legislation.
Some argue that safeguards alone may not guarantee protection — especially in a context where legal enforcement of LGBTQ+ rights is weak.
Uganda’s government has not reversed the AHA, maintaining it as sovereign legislation. Some observers view the World Bank’s decision as prioritizing developmental pragmatism over principled stance.
The decision may set a precedent: financing bodies must weigh human rights violations against their developmental mandates.
