Rwandan Refugee Physical (In) Security in Uganda: Views from Below

The paper analyzes the challenge of physical (in) security of Rwandan refugees in Nakivale and Oruchinga settlements, South Western Uganda. The paper is largely based on the views of the refugees themselves. It argues that contrary to her international obligations and the general view that Uganda is a hospitable asylum country, refugees face insecurity caused by a number of factors, including actions by their country of origin and the host state, as well as local settlement dynamics and internal sources. This insecurity has negatively affected the refugees, who have adopted a number of protection measures which supplement the ones put in place by the government and UNHCR. Despite the implementation of different security measures, insecurity still prevails in the settlements.


Introduction
According to UNHCR, "by the end of 2019, 79.5 million individuals were forcibly displaced as a result of persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations or events seriously disturbing public order". 1 Out of 79.5 million, 26 million were refugees 2 , 45.7 million Internally Displaced Persons and 4.2 million asylum seekers. 3 Developing regions hosted 85 percent of the world's refugees under UNHCR mandate. 4 Uganda was the 4 th and 1 st top refugee hosting country in the world and Africa respectively. It hosted over 1.4 million refugees. 5 The majority of these refugees come from neighboring countries and the wider region, South Sudan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, Somalia, Rwanda, Kenya, Ethiopia and Eritrea among others. By June 2020 around writing focused on the views and perspectives of stakeholders especially the refugees. This paper is different from others because it lets the refugees speak and their claims and perspectives are verified by the external points of view of stakeholders.
This article is based on three research visits carried out at different intervals in Nakivale and Oruchinga settlements in south western Uganda. The first visit took place between June 2010 and December 2011. A second visit took place between June and August 2016. The third visit was carried out from 26th to 31st January 2018. The study focused on Rwandan new caseload refugees that came to Uganda after 1994 and used a qualitative research methodology. Semi-structured and key informant interviews, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), observation and documentary evidence were the main research techniques. Purposive criterion sampling was used to select the study respondents, namely Rwandan refugees, Rwandan and Ugandan government officials, UNHCR and NGOs officials, as well as local hosts around Nakivale and Oruchinga settlements, Isingiro District. 18 In addition, 'recyclers' 19 were identified through snowball sampling. Rwandan refugees and other categories of respondents answered questions on themes like refugee physical security, refugee rights and obligations, voluntary and forced repatriation, local integration, resettlement, the so-called cessation clause and, in general, avenues to find durable solutions. 20 The analysis further makes use of secondary data, both scholarly articles and grey literature.
The paper is structured as follows. The first section addresses the views of Rwandan refugees verified by the external points of view of stakeholders on the causes of insecurity. Subsequently, the paper analyzes the effects of insecurity and the measures adopted by refugees to improve security. Based on this analysis, the paper concludes with methodological and policy implications.

Causes and Forms of Insecurity
This section explores the causes, forms and dynamics of Rwandan refugee physical (in) security in Nakivale and Oruchinga settlements in South-western Uganda. This insecurity is categorized under the following: the country of origin, host state, local settlements dynamics and internal sources.

Rwandan Security Operations
Actions undertaken by Rwanda are among the main causes of insecurity. The refugees even claimed that their country of origin is responsible for their misery and insecurity. Actions of its security operatives feature prominently in their concerns. The settlements are accessible to Rwandan agents who come to Uganda to spy on or kidnap refugees. Insecurity is heightened by the closeness of the settlements to Rwanda (Nakivale and Oruchinga are approximately 70 and 52 kilometers respectively from the border) 21 . A refugee man noted that "Nakivale is just like a part of Rwanda…. the Rwandan authorities know exactly what is taking place here in Nakivale. Nakivale is near Rwanda and is easily accessible by Rwandan security officials". 22 A refugee woman expressed her fear that Oruchinga is very close to the Rwandan border. She noted that the settlement is in the Working Paper No. 4, University of Oxford, May;Crisp Jeff (2000), "A State of Insecurity: The Political Economy of Violence in Kenya's Refugee Camps", African Affairs, Vol. 99:601-632. 18 The first visit involved 162 respondents. 1 FGD, each with 12 Rwandans was organized in each of the 3 zones in Nakivale; Base Camp, Juru and Rubondo. In each of the zones, I interviewed 10 refugee leaders. I also interviewed 10 recyclers, 10 Isingiro district officials, 11 Officials from Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), 16 NGOs staff, 10 police officers, 36 local hosts (6 locals from each of the 6 sub-counties bordering Nakivale), 1 expert on refugee studies and 2 officials from the Rwandan High Commission in Kampala. In the second visit, a total of 182 respondents participated in the study. 4 FGDs each with 10 Rwandan refugees were organized in 4 zones of Nakivale settlement; Base Camp, Juru, Rubondo and Kabazana. The 5 th FGD with 10 Rwandan refugees was organized in Oruchinga settlement. I interviewed 10 refugee leaders from each of the 4 zones in Nakivale. 10 refugee leaders were interviewed in Oruchinga settlement. Apart from the refugees, I interviewed 16 recyclers (10 in Nakivale and 6 in Oruchinga), 10 new asylum seekers (6 in Nakivale and 4 in Oruchinga), 6 OPM officials (4 in Nakivale and 2 in Oruchinga), 4 Isingiro district officials, 34 local hosts (24 in Nakivale and 10 in Oruchinga), 10 NGOs staff (6 in Nakivale and 4 in Oruchinga) and 2 officials from the Rwandan High Commission in Kampala. In the third visit, a total of 48 respondents participated. In Nakivale settlement, 24 Rwandan refugees, 4 recyclers and 2 OPM officials were interviewed. In Oruchinga, I interviewed 14 Rwandan refugees, 2 recyclers and 2 OPM officials. 19 Recyclers are refugees who were repatriated to Rwanda but later returned to Uganda claiming human rights violations, insecurity, persecution and inability to recover land and property in Rwanda. 20 The study observed ethical principles in research. The study was cleared by the Office of the Prime Minister and Isingiro District in Uganda. During the data collection exercise, the respondents were briefed on the purpose of the study which was purely academic. Their confidentiality, informed consent and voluntary participation were observed and respected. 21 According to the 1969 OAU Convention, "for reasons of security, countries of asylum shall, as far as possible, settle refugees at a reasonable distance from the frontier of their country of origin". Although the concept of 'reasonable distance' has never been officially defined, UNHCR and state practice puts it at 50 kilometers. 22 Interview with a refugee man, Juru zone, Nakivale Settlement on 24 th June 2010. backyard of Rwanda. 23 A refugee man added that "Nakivale is like a territory of Rwanda. President Kagame knows exactly what happens here. He knows those who have money, how many children per family and those who are politically active. His main aim is to kill those who are rich and politically active. He considers them a threat to his regime". 24 Another interviewee said: "There is an example of a Rwandan refugee who was abducted here in Nakivale settlement and put in a car by unknown people. Fortunately, the person was rescued by the Ugandan police near Kabingo town. We later learnt that our colleague had been abducted by Rwandan agents who wanted to take him to Kigali". 25 In a FGD, refugees expressed fear spying and possible abduction by the Rwandan agents. They also mentioned colleagues who were abducted in Oruchinga settlement. 26 These facts were confirmed by the Ugandan security officials who acknowledged that there was frequent spying on the refugees from Rwandan officials seeking intelligence on suspected genocide perpetrators or refugees involved in armed rebellion against Rwanda. 27 An OPM official noted: "There is a time when we arrested Rwandan agents in Nakivale and we asked them to leave. It is common knowledge that Rwandan spies operate in settlements". 28 Various stakeholders from OPM, UNHCR and NGOs noted that the Rwandan government has genuine reasons for closely monitoring refugees in Uganda because it knows their potential as a security threat. One of the officials noted that "President Kagame was here in Uganda as a refugee. The struggle to liberate Rwanda started here in Nakivale. He knows very well these refugees can be mobilized by people opposed to his government. He has interest in returning all refugees to avoid future insecurity". 29 Harrell-Bond notes that the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), in collaboration with Ugandan military and police, has been engaged in abductions of any Rwandan suspected of collaborating with the Hutu militia, the Interahamwe. 30 For example, the Ugandan Human Rights Commission publically condemned the External Security Organization (ESO) and Internal Security Organization (ISO) for collaborating with Rwandan intelligence services to abduct Rwandan Hutu refugees. 31 Human Rights Watch has also reported on the harassment of refugees by Rwandan agents. 32 Amnesty International also raised this issue and called "attention to these same cases of abduction and deportation, arbitrary arrest and extra-judicial execution of Rwandan nationals within Uganda". 33 Today, these abductions and executions of Rwandan refugees continue to be reported by Ugandan newspapers. 34 Other sources have documented the abduction and murder of Rwandan refugees. 35

Forced Repatriation and Cessation Clause
The post-genocide regime in Rwanda has aggressively promoted the repatriation of Rwandan refugees from other countries. It has pushed UNHCR and host countries that refugees no longer have any justification for refugee status. Rwanda has made the return of refugees one of its top foreign policy objectives. The neighbors including 23 Interview with a refugee woman, Oruchinga settlement on 29 th August 2016. 24 Interview with a refugee man, Kigali village, Nakivale Settlement on 16 th June 2016. 25 Interview with a refugee man, Rubondo zone, Nakivale Settlement on 7 th July 2010. 26  Uganda are pressurized into supporting this objective.
One respondent claimed that "Kagame has been pushing hard for our forced return. He is on record to have said that Rwandan refugees in Nakivale will have to return home just like we did in Tanzania, DRC and Burundi". 36 Another refugee woman said: "Kagame said on national television and radio that he will not rest until all the refugees in Nakivale have returned home. He asked why we are not returning. To him our continued stay in exile meant that we are running away from justice and reconciliation". 37 In a Focus Group Discussion, refugees noted: "Rwanda is behind the pending cessation clause. It has deceived other countries that we no longer have any reason to remain refugees. These are lies and should not be accepted. We have well-founded fear of persecution". 38 The above views are supported by other sources. According to International Refugee Rights Initiative, Refugee Law Project & Social Science Research Council, "….. The Rwandan government itself has aggressively promoted the return of all its citizens because of security fears and a concern for the country's public image". 39 A Senior Protection Officer in the Office of the Prime Minister noted that: "Our colleagues from Rwanda have been pushing us in tripartite commission meetings to accept their point of view of declaring cessation clause and forced repatriation of Rwandan refugees. At times we don't agree with them but we are forced to compromise on our positions and policy because of the need to maintain good interstate diplomatic relations". 40 This was confirmed by a Refugee Law Project official: "Obviously Rwanda is strongly pushing other countries to force all Rwandan refugees to return. Kagame knows the implications of not repatriating refugees outside Rwandan territory. Remember there is an active rebel group opposed to the Kigali government. Who knows Rwandan refugees in Uganda are a recruiting ground for these rebels. Because of national security interests, Kagame has made refugee repatriation one of his foreign policy priorities". 41

Ban on Cultivation
The refugees noted that the policy on ban on cultivation is externally influenced by the Rwandan government. They observed that in a bid to strongly promote repatriation of its nationals, Rwanda has influenced Uganda to ban cultivation and reduce food rations for Rwandan refugees. A refugee woman noted: "Even if they stop us from cultivating, we will not return to Rwanda. Our refusal to return home is not connected to land in Nakivale. We would have returned immediately government stopped cultivation activities. Our failure to return is closely related to politics, human rights and justice in Rwanda". 42 In a FGD, refugees argued that: "We know Kagame is trying to force Uganda to expel us. We know Uganda has no problem with us. We have been living here without harassment from the government. Uganda has always allowed us to cultivate until 2009 when we were stopped. We request OPM to allow us cultivate". 43 Officials from OPM and NGOs agreed that Rwanda had influenced the policy to ban cultivation for refugees. According to an OPM official: "There was a belief that Rwandan refugees were not willing to return because of access to land in Nakivale. Rwandans were the most productive cultivating mainly maize and beans. Our Rwandan colleagues thought that by denying refugees land, they would be encouraged to return. They asked us to stop cultivation as a way of encouraging repatriation". 44 Another respondent said: "Rwanda at first thought that refugees were not returning due to land access in Nakivale. This issue of land was raised in the Tripartite Repatriation Commission and an agreement reached to stop Rwandan refugees' access to land. They thought this would encourage repatriation. However, this policy has backfired since there are no refugees voluntarily registering for 36 Interview with a refugee woman, Juru zone, Nakivale settlement on 24 th June 2010; Interview with a refugee man, Sangano, Nakivale settlement on 27 th January 2018. 37 Interview with a refugee woman, Sangano, Nakivale settlement on 23 rd June 2016. 38  repatriation ". 45 According to the Settlement Commandant, Rwandan refugees were relying on food assistance from humanitarian agencies like the World Food Programme. 46 Despite the ban on cultivation, the majority of Rwandan refugees were not willing to return. Thus, "we thought a good number would have returned by now but no one is interested in leaving Nakivale". 47

Events inside Rwanda
Events inside Rwanda were a source of insecurity to the refugees. A significant number preferred to be in their home country but feared ethnic tensions, state persecution and imprisonment. Refugees lamented: "When we hear what is going on in Rwanda, we fear for our lives. Government officials close to Kagame are running away into exile. Kayumba Nyamwasa and many others have fallen out with the government. If top government officials can run away, what about us the ordinary people…?". 48 In another FGD, refugees noted that: "We feel insecure by what we hear in Rwanda. There is harassment and persecution of journalists, opposition politicians and anyone who is critical of Kagame's government. We get more worried when Kagame follows up and kills his opponents living in exile". 49 Another reason for fleeing Rwanda includes unfair treatment of Hutu in Gacaca courts. 50 An interviewee said: "I was imprisoned without any reason… and in the Gacaca courts there is no fair judgment especially for the Hutu". 51 The refugees further said that the Gacaca courts and Ibuka commemorations have been used for settling personal vendetta. 52 The refugees also noted that the Hutu who died are not remembered; only Tutsi are remembered. A refugee woman said: "….the minister said that it was a time to remember the Tutsi and not Hutu". 53 This seemed unfair and politically oriented towards isolating the Hutu as the only culprits in the genocide, thus keeping them in constant fear of persecution even when they are refugees in Uganda.
Others fled because of lack of basic property for survival. They reported that their property was confiscated and had no means of livelihood. A respondent mentioned that his house had been taken by Tutsi returnees. He stated that "…some of our friends were killed, others arrested, people's houses and property were taken; the government is very hostile to Hutu….". 54 Refugees further mentioned ethnic segregation as a cause for their flight, and claimed that the Hutu were more subjected to poverty and ill treatment than the Tutsi. This was confirmed by other refugees: "Much as the government is talking of reconciliation and equal opportunities for all Rwandans, our Tutsi colleagues have more opportunities than us Hutu. There are more Tutsi in government, army, business and other sectors. Hutu are getting poorer and poorer each day that passes. When we complain, they accuse us of promoting the genocide ideology". 55 It was noted that there were no peaceful means of solving ethnic differences in Rwanda and true reconciliation had not been achieved. True reconciliation was reported to be possible if Rwanda could remove restrictions on freedom of expression to enable national healing and reconciliation. Refugees stated: "All Rwandans need to sit together and look at their history objectively. We need to appreciate that both Hutu and Tutsi lost their people in the civil war and genocide. Denying this fact is unfair and will breed future problems. When we mention this they call us Refugees claimed that they did not have freedom of expression in Rwanda and were worried about the wrong picture the Rwandan government had painted to the international community that did not reflect the reality on the ground. "We have constantly told UNHCR and OPM that there is no freedom of expression and speech in Rwanda. If you speak out your mind they regard you as an enemy. Yet there are critical issues we have to talk about as Rwandan citizens. Kagame is very smart with his propaganda. He has convinced the whole world that the country is peaceful. But the truth on the ground is that he is a dictator and killer". 57 The reception in Rwanda was reported to be bad by the refugees who had returned and came to Uganda. One of the respondents said: "I didn't have where to settle and when I asked for my father's land at the sub county, they put me in prison. I decided to return to Uganda". 58 The same point was raised by another recycler: "I am one of the people who returned to Rwanda in 2005. Unfortunately, life was hard for me. I was taken to prison and tortured by prison authorities. Before being taken to prison, I tried to claim my piece of land but I was harassed and labeled a killer. I approached the authorities for assistance but all in vain". 59 The above views of refugees are confirmed by stakeholders. One of the Uganda security officials mentioned that "we hear there is mistreatment of the Hutu when they return. There is bias at home that refugees living abroad have painted a bad image of Rwanda. It is possible that those who return are looked at with suspicion". 60 Another respondent argued that refugees who have stayed outside for long are seen by Kigali as either running away from justice or not patriotic. 61 Other sources have confirmed the views of refugees about socio-economic and political conditions in Rwanda. 62

Conflicts with Fellow Rwandans
Nakivale and Oruchinga settlements have experienced conflicts between Rwandan Tutsi and Hutu. The former came to Uganda in 1959 and subsequent years while the latter arrived in and after 1994. The two groups have been involved in land conflicts especially in Nakivale. The Hutu accuse Tutsi herdsmen of deliberately allowing cattle destroy their crops. In addition, there was suspicion between the two groups. The Tutsi are accused of being President Kagame's spies in the settlements. The refugees argued that all their activities and movements were closely monitored by Rwanda through the Tutsi. 63 One refugee man claimed: "All of us are being monitored by Rwanda. We cannot engage in any activity of fighting the Rwandan government. We will be killed. Our fellow Rwandan Tutsi who live here as Ugandans report to Kagame on everything happening in Nakivale. We are worried of them but we have no option". 64 Rwandan Tutsi have Ugandan de facto citizenship. Although they were not officially/legally granted citizenship in Uganda, they were able to get citizenship through unofficial means. Some of these Tutsi were said to be having government jobs in Rwanda and traveled there regularly. A refugee man noted: "The Tutsi travel to Rwanda regularly to work. They come to visit their counterparts in Uganda. In the process, it is easy for them to spy on 56 63 The Rwandan government is suspicious of the Rwandan refugees outside their country of origin. The current government officials including President Kagame in Kigali were once refugees in Nakivale. The 1990 invasion by the RPF was planned and organized with the Tutsi refugees living in Nakivale and other areas in Uganda. 64 Interview with a refugee man, Kigali village, Nakivale Settlement on 17 th June 2016. us". 65 These claims were raised by most interviewed refugees.
The above refugee claims were confirmed by sources within the OPM, NGO officials and local hosts, who acknowledged that Rwandan Hutu-Tutsi tensions existed in Nakivale and Oruchinga settlements. Other sources have made a similar argument that Rwandan conflicts are fought out on the Ugandan territory with Nakivale being the main theatre. 66 2.2.2 Conflicts with Other Refugee Nationalities Insecurity was also caused by the conflicts with other refugee nationalities. This was as a result of the diversity of the refugee population from DRC, Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan and Eritrea. The refugees inevitably compete for the limited resources available like land, water and other services. The competition results into tensions, fighting and murder which affect the security of refugees. There were notable land conflicts between Rwandan and Congolese refugees. After the ban on cultivation for Rwandans, land was transferred to Congolese refugees. Rwandans accuse Congolese (popularly known as Banyamulenge and Bakongomani) 67 of taking over their land. They noted that: "We used to access land and grow our crops. We would then get food for our children. When the Banyamulenge came, they took our land. The Banyamulenge tell us that we don't have land here and should go back to Rwanda. This hurts us but we cannot do anything". 68 In a FGD refugees said: "The coming of the Bakongomani here in Nakivale has been bad news to us. They have taken all the land that belonged to us. We are now beggars in the face of other refugees. The Bakongomani laugh at us that we are landless. At times we fight with them". 69 Although Congolese refugees are not to blame for the land conflicts, the fact that they were given land originally owned by Rwandans automatically made them enemies.
Rwandans were also suspicious of Congolese Tutsi refugees (Banyamulenge) from Eastern DRC. The Banyamulenge were suspected of being Kagame's spies since they are Tutsi. Refugees noted: "We regard Banyamulenge from Congo as our enemies because they are an ally of Kagame". 70 This suspicion and fear of Congolese refugees is understandable given the ethnic similarities between the Banyamulenge and the Rwandan Tutsi.
The settlement commandant confirmed that there were conflicts between Rwandan and Congolese refugees fueled by competition for land, ethnic tensions and suspicion. 71 This view is shared by other sources. 72

Conflicts with Local Hosts
Nakivale and Oruchinga settlements have experienced conflicts between local hosts and refugees. Although a good number of refugees reported to be happy staying with Ugandans, a significant number argued that conflicts had greatly affected their relationship. They observed that there was increased enmity over land, abuse and continuous incitement from local hosts. In a FGD they noted that: "Our relationship with Ugandans used to be okay. However, many of them started coming here in the settlement in search of land. The local hosts argued that Nakivale land was theirs and refugees should go back to their countries. We opposed them and this led to fighting and quarrels". 73 The same view was raised by refugees in Juru zone: "There are land conflicts between refugees and Ugandans. We all claim the same pieces of land. Last month the Settlement Commandant came to chase away the Ugandans but they refused to leave. They are telling us that instead refugees are the ones to vacate their land. Recently a group of Ugandans attacked cows belonging to a refugee and injured them. The case has been registered at Juru police post". 74 The refugees mentioned one incident between refugees and one local Ugandan. The latter accused the former of settling on his land illegally for 3 years. This local Ugandan brought soldiers from Mbarara to evict the refugees. This resulted into injuries and destruction of property. However, the refugees reported the case to the settlement commandant who intervened on the side of refugees to stay on the land. The case was however taken to court by this Ugandan man. 75 The existence of land conflicts has been confirmed by OPM, Isingiro district officials and local hosts. A district official noted: "Here in Isingiro district we have a challenge of land conflicts between the refugees and local hosts. What is surprising us is that some local Ugandans have land titles here in Nakivale and we wonder how they got them. Nakivale land is government land and it is not possible to acquire land titles. With many cases of corruption here in Uganda anything is possible. Land conflicts have led to insecurity here in Nakivale and it is common to hear of fighting, murder and destruction of property". 76 Some respondents reported that in the year 2009, a group of local people, mainly Banyankore went to the settlement to claim the land that 'belonged to them'. They were aggrieved that refugees were using it while Ugandans did not have land to use. One female Ugandan argued: "Uganda is a funny country; how can you give land to refugees when nationals do not have. It is like a parent who loves the neighbor's children more than her own. We shall not accept this. Refugees should go back to where they came from". 77 The same sentiment was echoed by a Ugandan man: "We have land conflicts between refugees and the nationals. The root causes are unclear boundaries and corruption. The Camp Commandant wanted to put refugees in Yowasi's land and we demonstrated and fought. The commandant later gave up. We later heard that the commandant had been bribed by refugees. As Ugandans we shall not tolerate this unfairness and injustice". 78

Large and Open Settlement
Nakivale is a large and open settlement where there is free entry and exit and as such it is not easy to ensure security. The settlement is 84 square kilometers large with over 115,000 refugees 79 . It is difficult to maintain security in this vast settlement with a significant number of nationals without entry and exit control. The refugees noted that insecurity is caused by the large size of Nakivale. 80 In a FGD, the refugees noted that the settlement was not fenced and people move in and out any time of the day without any hindrance. They argued that this has given their enemies easy access to the settlement." 81 The refugees in Oruchinga also expressed the same fears of living in an open and unfenced settlement. 82 The Settlement Commandant noted that: "One of the causes of insecurity here in Nakivale is the big and open settlement. Nakivale has so many entry and exit points that are not monitored. You cannot tell who comes in and goes out. It's a big challenge on our part to ensure security to the refugees. I think there is need to fence the settlement the way Kenya and Tanzania do it". 83 The same view was shared by a security official: "Insecurity in Nakivale is partly due to the vast and open settlement where there is free entry and exit. Movements are not regulated. We know of refugee groups that drive in and out of the settlement in the middle of the night. Surely, how can we ensure security when refugee movements are not monitored and regulated? We are sitting on a time bomb". 84 In countries like Kenya and Tanzania, measures like fencing camps and limiting movements have helped in ensuring security. However, Kenya and Tanzania have faced challenges of ensuring security despite the presence of fences in the refugee camps. It is difficult to ensure security in a big and open settlement than in a closed camp.
According to UNHCR, "camps of over 20,000 people should be avoided". 85 Crisp has argued that while UNHCR does not give any reason for this recommendation, there is a general understanding within the organization that larger camps have several disadvantages: their environmental impact is greater than that of smaller camps; they impinge to a greater degree on the local population; they provide a less familiar and comfortable way of life for refugees, most of whom are of rural origin; they are consequently more prone to social unrest and are simultaneously more difficult to police. 86

Composition of Refugee Population
As earlier noted, Nakivale Settlement has a diverse population with refugees from DRC, Rwanda, Burundi, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan and Eritrea. In Oruchinga, the main refugee nationalities are Rwandans, Burundians and Congolese. With this large population and unclear land boundaries, the possibility of conflict, often manifesting itself in various forms of ethnic, social, economic, and political disputes become inevitable. One respondent noted: "Insecurity in Nakivale is caused by the presence of various refugee nationalities. These refugees are from different backgrounds and cultures. For example, Somalis regard other refugee nationalities as inferior and unclean. They do not want to mix freely with other groups of refugees. The other refugee groups call Somalis terrorists. This brings about misunderstanding and conflicts between different refugee nationalities". 87 One refugee woman noted: "Suspicion and hatred among refugee groups has led to insecurity. Since we come from different countries, there are differences in religion, culture, customs, beliefs and language. These differences at times cause conflicts". 88 The above views were reiterated by government officials. One official argued: "How do you expect to have peace and security in Nakivale with a population of close to 120,000 refugees? This is a big challenge. Remember these refugees have different backgrounds, experiences, beliefs and languages. These people look at each other as foreigners and strangers. You cannot expect them to live together harmoniously". 89 In addition, among the refugee groups are former soldiers, rebels, criminals plus traumatized refugees. Violence and fighting are more likely unless strong measures are put in place to prevent and resolve conflicts. Furthermore, former enemies are likely to live together in countries of asylum. As already mentioned, there are conflicts between Rwandan Hutu and Tutsi in Nakivale and Oruchinga settlements. This was noted by one respondent: "Insecurity in Nakivale and Oruchinga is brought about by former enemies living together in settlements. This leads to the transfer of conflicts from home to countries of asylum. Rwandan Hutu and Tutsi are an example". 90 The above findings confirm what Jeff Crisp had earlier found in Kenya, namely that "with regard to the composition of the camps, there are some evident risks in the establishment of a camp such as Kakuma, where refugees from around ten different countries and 20 ethnic groups are obliged to live together especially when those refugees are members of communities which have good reason to distrust or even despise each other: Hutus and Tutsis; Amharas, Eritreans and Oromos; Sudanese Christians and Somali Muslims". 91

Refugee Protests
Refugee protests were another source of insecurity especially in Nakivale settlement. There were times when refugees would barricade all roads into the settlement to protest food-aid disruption. Other protests were caused by refugees' grievances like accidental death of their fellow refugees 92 and conflicts between different refugee nationalities. A notable one was the 2009 protest in Nakivale settlement where Congolese refugees and to a small extent other refugee nationalities staged a protest over failure to get food supplies in the settlement. An interviewee said: "We had spent three months without any food supplies from government or any food relief or humanitarian agency". 93 Another refugee added: "How do you expect refugees to be peaceful when they are hungry and desperate for food? A hungry person is an angry one". 94 Another respondent mentioned that "in 2009 we were demanding to be relocated to another country where we could be protected from hunger". 95 This was further emphasized by refugees in a focus group discussion: "The 2009 protest was caused by lack of food here in Nakivale. The World Food Programme ran out of food supplies and this caused commotion. We Rwandan refugees did not actively participate for fear of being expelled. But in our hearts we supported the Congolese refugees who actively demonstrated. We were all faced with the problem of hunger". 96 An OPM official noted that: "the 2009 protest was so serious that the local settlement and Isingiro police could not handle it. We had to get reinforcements of military police from Mbarara to stop the protest. Just like with other protests in Uganda, a number of refugees were injured, arrested and imprisoned". 97

Armed Robbery, Theft and Murder
A number of Rwandan refugees and Ugandans living in the settlement expressed fear moving at night because it was considered unsafe. One refugee man noted that: "We fear for our lives. There are cases of robbery at night. At times people are killed and we don't know who is responsible". 98 In a FGD refugees noted: "Although OPM and police have tried to ensure security, there are still cases of robbery, theft and murder". 99 The local hosts also expressed their views on insecurity. A Ugandan male said: "it is very hard to move at night; for example recently some Ugandans were severely beaten and robbed of their money". 100 A Ugandan woman noted: "Theft cases are common here. Refugees steal our food, goats and chicken. We can tell a difference between the time when refugees were few and now that the number has increased. Last week in Kankingi village, thieves were arrested and found with 10 stolen goats. One thief was hit and killed by a mob". 101 A security official said: "Theft and murder are common in Nakivale. There are more of these cases in the refugee settlement. Both refugees and host communities are responsible for thefts. However, our security intelligence shows that there are more refugees involved in theft than the local hosts. These insecurity cases lead to loss of lives and property". 102 Humanitarian officials said: "some of these refugees are former combatants, so we are cautious of our movements and by 7pm all vehicles should be already in the settlement". 103 There was a problem of highway armed robbery 104 said to be rampant between the late 1990s and mid-2000s until the intervention of Uganda police. These cases were common on the highway from Kabingo town to Rugaaga around Kahirimbi and Rwekubo trading centers.
According to the respondents, cases of highway robbery had reduced drastically but there were still a few cases reported. For example, during the time of data collection, there were reports of armed robbery, murder and theft in Nakivale around 15 times in a space of 2 months.

Influence of Local Politics
Some local politicians in Isingiro district were mobilizing local Ugandans against refugees mainly on the issue of land. In a FGD refugees noted: "Ugandans have grabbed settlement land. The influential politicians have bribed and are in possession of land titles. Many have come and settled on settlement land. Some are army officers who threaten refugees with murder and imprisonment. This is what I call harassment of refugees by local hosts. Instead of welcoming and assisting refugees, the locals are busy grabbing their land". 105 A refugee man noted "The local leaders in Isingiro have mobilized the local hosts to attack us. They say we are settled on Uganda's land. This has fueled land conflicts in Nakivale". 106 In a FGD refugees said: "We were victims of harassment by a powerful district official connected to the army. He fenced all our land. We mobilized ourselves and destroyed the fence and poles. We were beaten by the army and police and some refugees sustained injuries. Later, the district and police officials intervened to ensure security". 107 A newspaper reported that a local district councilor was busy mobilizing nationals against refugees in what he called harassment of Ugandans by refugees. 108 He noted: "We will not allow refugees to harass Ugandans when we are watching. Ugandans will not become 'refugees' in their own country. I was elected to represent the people of Isingiro at the district. I have an obligation to represent their interests including land. We have taken the case to Mbarara High Court and we want court to pronounce itself on the issue of land ownership in Nakivale". 109 The district councilor worked with his supporters to evict refugees. 110 Other sources have written on how some politicians had fenced settlement land and brought in the army and police to chase away refugees. 111 This is in line with the argument that local politics affects refugees especially when local politicians attack refugees using them as scapegoats of the problems affecting local hosts. 112

Shortcomings in Ensuring Security
Uganda has experienced shortcomings and challenges in ensuring the physical security of refugees in Nakivale and Oruchinga settlements. In a FGD, refugees stated that security was not good because they often got intelligence people from Rwanda coming around to spy on them. They noted: "The security in the settlement is not the best; we live in constant fear of being abducted by Rwanda security operatives. The settlement is too open to hide from our enemies. Sometimes you see people you don't know coming in the settlement. Besides there is discrimination against us which makes us feel insecure. We feel Uganda has not protected us well". 113 The same fears were raised by another group of refugees: "We thank the Uganda government for its hospitality towards refugees. However, we feel the government has to do more and ensure security in Oruchinga. We are threatened by Rwandan security agents. They spy on us and kidnap our colleagues. The prospect of forced repatriation also threatens us. We request more protection from the government". 114 Another respondent mentioned that "security is not good because there are robbers and thieves who disturb us especially at night". 115 The local hosts reiterated the refugees' views. A Ugandan male said: "there are cases of insecurity here in Nakivale; for example in Kibwera last year two Congolese killed their fellow Congolese". 116 Another respondent noted: "It is rare to spend a whole month here in Nakivale without hearing of theft, robbery or murder. These are common cases that we are used to". 117 The same view was echoed: "Security is poor and there are cases of theft and robbery.
Last year there was a refugee army deserter who had a gun and used it to rob people's homes at night. He was later arrested, tried and is now in prison". 118 NGO and OPM staff raised the same view on insecurity. One of the humanitarian officials noted that "security is not fine, much as responsible officers try to do their work". 119 She further noted: "We get cases of armed robbery; cases of stealing like a gun from a policeman attached to Juru police post in 2010, cases of fighting are there though not frequent". 120

Small Police Force
In addition, insecurity is fueled by the small number of police officers compared to the number of refugees in settlements. In 2010, there were 2 police officers in Rubondo Zone (the other 2 officers had gone to Masindi Police training school for training), 2 in Juru, 2 in Kahirimbi, 5 in Kashojwa and 4 in Kabahinda. Under normal circumstances a police post should have 6 police personnel. 121 Nakivale was hosting close to 70,000 refugees, a number too large to be protected by a mere 15 police officers. By the end of 2016, there were 45 police personnel protecting 120,000 refugees. 122 According to international standards, the acceptable ratio is 1 police officer for 500 people. 123 Going by this standard, the police-people ratio (1: 2667) in Nakivale was far below the internationally acceptable standards. 240 police personnel were required to meet the international standards. In Oruchinga, there were 15 police personnel for 7200 refugees, a ratio of 1 police officer for 480 people. This ratio is acceptable under international standards.
The respondents further talked of corruption and failure by the police to protect the refugees. One refugee man said that "police officers are few and poorly facilitated. Nakivale is a large area which needs many police officials". 124 A refugee woman agreed: "We feel insecure because of few police men around. We fear that any time Kagame will come and put us on lorries and take us back to Rwanda. He has been threatening that he will come and take us by force. We need more police officers to protect us. At the moment we live under God's mercy". 125 In addition, police did not have enough facilities in terms of fuel and vehicles to carry out their work. In 2010, police used motorcycles to patrol the settlement. By 2016, police had acquired a car to assist in their operations. The refugees talked of cases where police officers asked for money to provide them with a service. This left the majority of the poor refugees without access to police services and assistance. One refugee woman said: "The police officers are not enough here in Nakivale. When you go there with a problem, they ask you for money. Refugees are poor people. They do not have money to give to police officers". 126 A refugee man noted: "Police in the settlement is corrupt. Last year I was attacked by thieves at night. When I called one of our police officers, he told me there was no fuel in the motorcycle. He said I had to buy fuel. The police men came the following day at 11:00 am. Surely did the police expect to find thieves waiting for them? The response by police is very slow and at times not there at all". 127 In addition in 2010 there was only one police woman. More than half of the refugee population in Nakivale settlement are women. By 2016, the number of police women stood at 6. 128 The low number of police women is another flaw in the host state's duty to protect.

Government Ban on Cultivation
As already mentioned, a cultivation ban was imposed on Rwandan refugees under the cover of forcing them to return. Refugees had this to say: "Life is very hard without land. We used to cultivate and get food for our families. Now we depend on the mercy of World Food Programme. The assistance we get is very little. We request the government to revise the ban on cultivation". 129 One refugee woman lamented that "the ban on cultivation has made us turn into beggars. Can you imagine people with hands and legs to become beggars? What did Rwandans do to deserve all this suffering?". 130 The ban negatively affected Rwandan refugees in Nakivale settlement since they no longer had access to adequate food. There was increased food insecurity, domestic violence, theft and land conflicts between Rwandan and Congolese refugees. 131 Stakeholders agreed with refugee views. One respondent commented that "to take away people's livelihoods by implementing a farming ban is a short-sighted policy which only contributes to fueling tensions among refugees". 132 An aid worker said: "The ban on cultivation is very unfair and it discriminates against Rwandan refugees on the basis of nationality. This is a violation of the refugee and human rights law principle of nondiscrimination. Obviously this policy has contributed to insecurity at least from a human security perspective". 133 Furthermore, aid agencies like the World Food Program and UNHCR had limited and rather inflexible budgets and it was difficult for them to quickly implement stop-gap measures when changes in policy -like the farming ban -took place. An aid agent observed: "It is hard for humanitarian agencies to respond faster by increasing assistance to Rwandans because of the challenges of getting donations. But also, organizations plan and budget well in advance. It is hard for them to change budgets and plans to cater for a specific group of refugees. Currently Rwandan refugees get assistance on the assumption that they are able to supplement". 134 In the words of one respondent, "the policy of ban on cultivation has caused more insecurity in Nakivale as Rwandan refugees have resorted to illegal means of survival". 135 Other sources have reported the food insecurity of Rwandan refugees. 136

Forced Repatriation and Deadlines to Return
The threat of forced repatriation has led to insecurity and fear among Rwandan refugees in Nakivale and Oruchinga. The majority of refugees noted that they were living in constant fear of being forced to return to Rwanda. In addition, the pending cessation of refugee status has caused uncertainty and tension. Others stressed that they had resorted to sleeping in the bush for fear of being rounded up, put on trucks and returned to Rwanda. Refugees noted: "We are afraid of the cessation clause. We know they will force us to go to Rwanda and be killed by Kagame. Some of us are thinking of drowning in Lake Nakivale instead of being returned to Rwanda". 137 In another FGD the same sentiments were expressed: "In 2007, our colleagues in Kibati were forcefully returned to Rwanda in the middle of the night. We know any time they are coming for us. This has caused a lot of uncertainty and fear in the settlement". 138 The fears of refugees were understandable given the forced return of Rwandan asylum seekers and refugees on 14 th July 2010. 139 In the aftermath of this forced return, many Rwandan refugees were not sleeping in their homes. In fact, I was called during the night of 17 th July 2010 by a group of Rwandan refugees living in Juru zone, Nakivale settlement that they were hiding in the bush near Lake Nakivale. The refugees had run away from their homes because of a rumor that the police and army were planning to forcefully return them.
Forced return of refugees is a violation of refugee law and it puts many refugees at risk of being persecuted on return to Rwanda. The majority of the returned "rejected asylum seekers" in July 2010 had not exhausted the appeal process. 140 According to the Uganda Refugees Act, "an applicant aggrieved by the decision of the Refugee Eligibility Committee may appeal to the Appeals Board within thirty days after receipt of the notice of the decision of the Eligibility Committee". 141 According to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, the obligation of the state is "not to return or expel the refugee to where his or her life would be at risk for reasons of race, nationality, religion and membership of a particular social group or political opinion". 142 The forced return of Rwandan refugees and asylum seekers is a violation of the principle of non-refoulement.

Close Relationship with Rwanda
Uganda and Rwanda enjoy fairly a close relationship at least on the surface. This has affected Rwandan refugees 133 Interview with a Refugee Law Project official, Mbarara on 26 th July 2016. 134 Interview with an official of GTZ, Base Camp, Nakivale Settlement on 6 th July 2010. 138 Focus Group Discussion, Oruchinga settlement on 29 th August 2016. 139 On July 14 th 2010, the researcher and his team were in Nakivale settlement when the forced return of Rwandan asylum seekers and some refugees was carried out. The team heard gun shots and saw a good number of Rwandan refugees running away in different directions, some towards Lake Nakivale purportedly to commit suicide. I later saw a convoy of many lorries carrying Rwandans around Juru Trading Centre at around 1600 hours (4:00 pm local time). I counted around 15 lorries being escorted by Ugandan Police and OPM cars. Surprisingly UNHCR cars were part of this convoy. The team also observed one Rwandan man jumping off the truck and dying instantly on the spot. 140 In an interview with a senior officer in the Office of the Prime Minister, he regretted the denial of Rwandan asylum seekers the right of appeal. He acknowledged that the asylum seekers could have been returned to Rwanda where the likelihood of persecution upon return was very high. 141 Section 21(1) of the 2006 Uganda Refugees Act.
living on Ugandan soil. The refugees revealed that there was a strong collaboration between the two neighbors on the way they were being treated. They noted that "it was easy for Rwandan security agents to harass us because of the close relationship between the two governments". 143 Another FGD noted: "The close relationship between the two countries is responsible for our suffering. Uganda government officials listen to their Rwandan colleagues during meetings. That is why we were stopped from cultivation and are being forced to return". 144 The refugees believed that it was easy for Rwanda to influence policy making on refugees in Uganda.
As already mentioned, Harrell-Bond made this observation regarding the close relationship between Uganda and Rwanda and how this has negatively affected the security of refugees. One respondent agreed with this view: "one of the problems affecting Rwandan refugees is the close relationship between Uganda and Rwanda. Uganda seems to be implementing exactly what Rwanda wants. Uganda has sacrificed refugee rights at the altar of diplomatic relations". 145 However, even when Uganda and Rwanda fell out for the period between 1999 and 2006 146 , this did not interrupt efforts by the Rwandan intelligence to harass refugees in The Office of the Prime Minister has orchestrated forms of discrimination against Rwandans. For example, the ban on cultivation, reduction in food rations, denial of travel documents and verbal attacks were implemented with the full knowledge of the OPM. The majority of the refugees noted that they were denied audience/hearing by officials in OPM especially on their challenges and security concerns. 148 It was further revealed that the OPM was responsible for the forced return of Rwandans on 14 th July 2010. 149 A respondent asked: "How can OPM officials participate in the forced return of our fellow Rwandans by lying to them that they were going to receive ration cards and food? How can OPM escort them well aware that Rwanda is not peaceful? To me the OPM has neglected and left us as orphans". 150 Refugees in a FGD said: "Because of discrimination by OPM officers, refugees no longer respect them. They tell us that we have no space in Nakivale and government does not want us here. They tell us that our home is in Rwanda. They make these statements almost every day". 151 NGO officials shared the views of refugees. One respondent noted: "Uganda is praised internationally for her open asylum policies. However, its policies towards Rwandans contradict her reputation of protecting refugees. There is evidence of discrimination against Rwandan refugees". 152 There are similar claims of discrimination and harassment by other sources. 153

Domestic Violence
Refugee women who fled violence in their countries of origin have experienced violence in Nakivale and Oruchinga settlements. This has also affected Rwandan refugee women. Domestic violence had worsened due to the ban on cultivation and reduction in food rations. Rwandan refugee women said that their husbands were more violent and abusive because of redundancy and drinking alcohol. One refugee woman said: "I have faced domestic violence. My husband beats me almost every day. He comes home in the night drunk and starts beating me. Our children have run away from our house for fear of being beaten and harassed. My husband used not to drink two years ago. He is now very disgruntled and abuses me all the time". 154 A refugee woman noted: "Life is very hard these days. My husband spends the whole day at home. In the past we would both go to the gardens to work. But things have changed since the government told us not to cultivate. My husband's behavior has changed and he quarrels and beats me without any reason". 155 A humanitarian official shared the same view: "Domestic violence is on the increase among Rwandan refugees. We get more cases these days. We attribute this to the ban on cultivation. The majority depend on cultivation as the main source of livelihood. With the ban on cultivation, the majority have resorted to drinking and other antisocial behavior". 156 The Uganda Penal Code Act Cap.106 does not specifically provide that domestic violence is an offence. 157 The absence of a specific law protecting women against domestic violence, fear, as well as being ostracized by the society, traditional beliefs and attitudes made refugee women more vulnerable to domestic violence. In this case, domestic violence includes a range of sexual, psychological and physical coercive acts against adult and adolescent women by a current or former intimate partner, without their consent.

Sexual Abuse and Violence
Another notable factor that curtailed the security of refugees was sexual abuse and violence. Refugees were living with threats of rape and defilement on a daily basis. Although measures had been taken to address sexual abuse and violence by a number of actors like Medical Teams International (MTI) and Germany Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) 158 , it was common to hear of girls and women being defiled and raped. These cases were common at night and in isolated areas in Nakivale and Oruchinga settlements. It was also possible that some of the cases of sexual abuse and violence go unreported as refugee women and girls fear being laughed at and want to avoid the shame. All the respondents reported rape cases in the past when women ventured out into the bush to collect firewood. 159 However, it was noted that women no longer went out for firewood. NGOs were distributing firewood in the settlement. 160 Women used to be attacked as they went to the nearby Lake Nakivale to fetch water. However, the number of people going to fetch water at the lake has greatly reduced since water was being pumped to the settlement. 161 Complaints of poor flow of water at the taps were registered. One refugee woman noted: "Rape cases used to be rampant when all of us used to go to the lake to fetch water. These days rape cases have reduced since there are few people going to the lake". 162 Another refugee argued: "We have cases of rape and defilement in Nakivale which have affected our daughters and wives. These days UNHCR and NGOs have intensified the fight against sexual violence through sensitization and assistance to the victims. But they cannot completely stop the bad practice". 163 Humanitarian officials concurred that there was a challenge of sexual violence. One respondent noted: "Obviously we do not receive all the cases of sexual violence. Some cases go unreported. Victims often fear to report for fear of public shame and losing their partners. They decide to keep quiet and suffer in silence". 164 A medical doctor agreed: "Although professionally I am not allowed to comment on my patients' cases, sexual violence cases are common here in Nakivale. Much as NGOs have intervened to fight this problem, we still receive cases in the health centres". 165 Similar findings were observed in the Kenyan refugee camps of Dadaab and Kakuma. 166

Local Brews
Local brews were another driving factor of insecurity. Most respondents claimed that living in a refugee settlement for a long period of time was a rather frustrating experience. Some people started drinking alcohol for a variety of reasons: some said that they missed their homes and families, they had little to do in the settlement to spend their time, and they thought drinking was fun, or they wanted to avoid thinking about their problems. Refugees said: "Drinking alcohol helps us to forget about our problems. We are able to mix freely with our friends and pass time. Life in the settlement is boring. Drinking alcohol helps us to cope with boredom". 167 Rwandan refugees resorted to drinking because of the ban on cultivation which left the majority without work that would keep them busy. In Rubondo zone, the research team saw a good number of Rwandan refugees drinking alcohol as early as 10 in the morning. This kind of life style feeds into a cycle of poverty and depression for families which leads to more drinking. Above all such drinking culminated into domestic violence, fighting and other crimes.
A humanitarian official noted: "drinking alcohol is common here in the settlement. It is one way of living with problems and stress. However, it tends to promote more problems and stress. Those who drink end up fighting, being wounded or divorcing. In my view drinking alcohol by refugees creates more problems for them". 168

Idleness and Redundancy
As already mentioned, an idle and redundant refugee population increases the risks of crimes and other violent behavior. People focus their energies on doing things that may not be productive in the long run. One respondent commented: "Redundancy is one of the causes of crimes here in Nakivale. Redundancy leads men into drinking and other criminal tendencies. There is need to empower refugees to start income generating activities as a strategy for ensuring security in camps". 169 For example in Gisura village, Rubondo zone, a FGD was interrupted by refugee men who started fighting in the nearby small local bar. It became so rowdy and serious that some of the participants had to excuse themselves to quell the fighting. A similar finding is reported by Crisp who argues that the monotony of refugee life resulted in occasional outbreaks of violence in Kakuma and Dadaab. 170

Drug Abuse
The researcher discovered that there were high rates of drug abuse among refugees in Nakivale settlement. It was also noted that Somali refugees were selling drugs around the settlement including Opium and Mira which in turn precipitated fighting and murder. 171 For example, in 2008 a Rwandan man smoked opium, ran amok and killed a fellow Rwandan refugee by cutting him to pieces using a machete. This refugee man is at the moment serving a life imprisonment sentence in Kyamugorani prison in Mbarara. 172 One NGO official argued: "Refugees engage in drugs as a coping strategy to their problems. The most common drugs here are marijuana and mirungi. These drugs make refugees commit crimes. We are currently having discussions among the implementing partners of UNHCR on the strategies to curb the problem of drug abuse". 173

Extreme Poverty
Extreme poverty among the refugees was found to be one of the causes of insecurity. With a ban on cultivation which used to be the main source of livelihood, the majority of refugees found it difficult to have sustainable incomes and support themselves. One of the refugees had this to stay: "Life has become very difficult with the denial of land and a chance to cultivate. The majority of us are cultivators and we used to sell our crop harvests mainly maize and beans and get money. Rwandans are hardworking people. Lorries used to come from as far as Kampala, Eastern Uganda and Kenya to buy our crops. Now that we have been stopped from cultivating, the amount of harvest has drastically diminished here in Nakivale. The other refugee nationalities are not as hard working as us Rwandans". 174 This view was supported by humanitarian officials and local Ugandans who noted that crop harvests had reduced with a ban on cultivation targeting Rwandan refugees. A local Ugandan man noted: "Nakivale has always been a source of maize and beans. However, this is slowly changing and the area no longer produces much harvest. We attribute this to the ban on cultivation for Rwandan refugees since they used to be the leading farmers". 175 Because of loss of income, refugees resorted to illegal means of survival like theft, prostitution and other criminal activities. A police officer attached to Juru police post noted that "the ban on cultivation for Rwandan refugees has led to an increase in crimes here in Nakivale. We have more cases of this group being caught as thieves and drunkards. For example, recently a Rwandan refugee stole a gun from this police post and we don't know where the gun is". 176 After a few weeks the stolen gun was found in Bushenyi, roughly 100 Kilometers from Nakivale settlement. 177 The study found a strong connection between the ban on cultivation, poverty and an increase in crimes in the settlements.

Witchcraft
The practice of witchcraft is widespread throughout Uganda's refugee community and beyond. A number of respondents cited instances of witchcraft as the main threat to their security. Witchcraft was mainly high due to the presence of people from various ethnicities and the consequential wrangles over limited resources. It was revealed that Congolese refugees were the most feared group as regards witchcraft. One of the refugees noted: "We fear Congolese witchcraft. They threaten us with their witchcraft and we keep quiet. Since they took our land they have used witchcraft to silence anyone who wants to claim land. There are people who had land wrangles with Congolese and have died under mysterious circumstances. We suspect that they could have died due to witchcraft". 178 The views on witchcraft were also raised by the local hosts. A Ugandan woman agreed with this view: "Congolese practice witchcraft. People in this area fear them. They threaten us that they will kill us with their Congolese gods. When you report to the police they tell us to prove witchcraft. But how do you prove witchcraft? It is not easy". 179 While it is difficult to prove these claims, there were many stories and testimonies of witchcraft among the refugees and host communities.

Effects of Insecurity on the Rwandan Refugees
Rwandan refugees have been affected by insecurity in a number of ways. They observed that the effects are at individual, family and community levels. The refugees pointed out that they were living in fear of abduction, arrest and murder from the Rwandan agents.
Secondly, the refugees had the fear of being forced to return to Rwanda as happened on 14 th July 2010. As already mentioned the refugees were now sleeping in the bush and changing residences for fear of being rounded up and put on trucks. One refugee woman observed: "We live in constant fear of being forced to return". 180 181 This was understandable given the way forced return of Rwandan asylum seekers and refugees was carried out in Uganda, Tanzania, Burundi and DRC. 182 Another effect of insecurity was the loss of lives. The refugees claimed that some of their colleagues had committed suicide in the nearby Lake Nakivale for fear of being forced to return. Other refugees lost their lives due to murder, fighting and robbery. As already mentioned, a Rwandan refugee was killed by nationals in Ngarama sub-county in 2010. 183 Families broke down as a result of domestic violence, rape and other forms of sexual abuse and violence. One refugee man stated that "I have separated from my wife because of rape. I feel angry about it". 184 Another respondent said: "I no longer stay with my husband because of abuse and violence. I stay with my two children. My husband threatens me. I have reported to our Refugee Welfare Council Chairperson for intervention". 185 The majority of the respondents said that children dropped out of school for fear of forced return. One respondent said: "Look at my children, they are here. They are not at school because we know any time we are returning home. Studying is wastage of time". 186 The refugees were also escaping from settlements to the districts of Isingiro, Kyenjojo and Mubende. This outward movement put them at a great risk of being robbed or harassed by the communities where they went. In addition, they had no access to humanitarian assistance thus putting their lives at risk. Other sources have reported the challenges faced by Rwandan refugees in accessing basic services such as health, education and protection. 187 The refugees further talked of psychological torture and loss of hope. They indicated that they had lost hope in life and put their lives in the hands of God. One refugee woman lamented: "We are here and not sure of tomorrow. We live under fear and uncertainty. No one knows whether we shall be alive or dead. Only God knows what lies ahead". 188

Physical Security Protection Measures by the Refugees
Physical security protection is the responsibility of the government supported by UNHCR and NGOs. However, the responsibility of security also rests on refugees themselves. According to refugee law, refugees have duties to the country in which they find themselves and are required to respect the laws, regulations and measures taken for the maintenance of public order. 189 This section focuses on those measures undertaken by refugees in ensuring security. Uganda used a participatory approach to security in which refugees played a role.
One of these measures was community vigilance and cooperation on security matters. The OPM and Uganda police engaged the refugees in community policing by requiring refugees to be responsible for security in the settlement. Refugees were obliged to report any wrongdoers and unknown people to the police or Refugee Welfare Councils (RWCs). As one refugee leader noted, "ensuring security here in Nakivale is everybody's responsibility including that of the refugees. No one should sit back and wait for police to do everything when we the refugees can offer a hand like sharing intelligence information, reporting wrong characters and other security related information ". 190 This approach is also being used in Kenyan camps specifically in Kakuma and Dadaab. Crisp refers to it as "community organization", based on the principle of community self-management. It is designed to empower the refugees to boost their involvement in camp life. 191 The Uganda police uses a similar approach of community policing in maintaining security.
Minister". 194 The RWCs engage in security patrols in refugee villages and zones, resolving disputes and cooperating with police and OPM. The most influential members of RWC include the Chairperson and Defence Secretary. A refugee noted that: "We work with OPM and police in ensuring security. RWCs are the ears and eyes of OPM in the settlement. They hear and see what goes on in our villages and inform the OPM and police ". 195 This was confirmed by the settlement commandant who observed that RWCs were the watch dogs of OPM in matters of security. 196 He noted that without RWCs, it would be hard to ensure security for the hundreds of thousands of refugees. 197 Finally, the refugees ensured security through the planting of Euphorbia tirucalli (locally known as "oruyenje") fences around their homes. These are trees that people use in land marks/demarcations and work as fences around people's homes. The researcher observed these fences around refugee homes. In most communities in Uganda, these fences are used in keeping animals in farms. These Euphorbia tirucalli are an equivalent of thorn fences used in refugee camps in Kenya and Tanzania.

Conclusion
This article has argued that much as Uganda has been praised worldwide as being friendly and hospitable to refugees, Rwandan refugees were faced with physical insecurity in violation of the country' international obligations. Based to a large extent on the views of Rwandan refugees, this paper has explored the dynamics of refugee physical (in) security in Nakivale and Oruchinga settlements. It was noted that Rwandan refugees are threatened by their country of origin, the host state and local settlement dynamics. Rwanda's threats include spying and abductions. A number of refugees have been abducted either from the settlements or other parts of Uganda. Rwandan has also influenced refugee policy such as forced repatriation, ban on cultivation and reduction of humanitarian assistance. Nakivale and Oruchinga are located approximately 70 and 52 kilometers respectively from the Rwandan border (Kagitumba/Mirama Hills) and are easily accessed by its security agents. Favored by the two countries' close relationship, Rwandan agents moved freely harassing refugees.
The paper has further noted that refugees were threatened by local settlement dynamics that included conflicts, the large and open nature of the settlement, the composition of refugee population, protests, armed robbery, theft and local politics. One can argue that refugees moved from one conflict to another. Rwandan Hutu-Tutsi conflicts were very alive in the settlements. The Hutu accused the Tutsi of spying on them on behalf of the Rwandan government. Land conflicts with Congolese refugees and local hosts were also a source of insecurity. Other sources included shortcomings and challenges of the host state, the small police force, ban on cultivation, forced repatriation, the two countries' close relationship and discriminatory tendencies.
A number of physical protection measures were adopted by the refugees in the settlement. Refugees were involved in the day to day management of security through RWCs and planting of Euphorbia tirucalli. These measures by the refugees were implemented alongside those of the government and the UNHCR. Despite the implementation of a number of protection measures, insecurity still prevails.
The insights in this article have methodological and policy implications. From a methodological perspective, more work needs to be done to identify and explore the differences between the official narrative of government, UNHCR and NGOs and the views of refugees who are affected by insecurity. Most times, the official narrative supports the view that refugees are secure and protected. All that is presented is how UNHCR, NGOs and government fulfill their obligations of protecting refugees. It might be argued that the findings in this article do not correspond with the widely accepted view that refugees are secure and protected in Uganda. Using a human security approach and exploring the views of refugees helps us to understand physical security and protection from their perspective and experiences. There is therefore need for further research on this issue. Furthermore, this paper has focused on physical security of Rwandan refugees. The 1994 UNDP Human Development report raised other aspects of human security like economic, food, health, political, community and environmental security. It is important to do further research on the above aspects of human security in the context of Rwandan refugees in Uganda.
From a policy perspective, the use of the human security concept and approach in security studies and international relations generally is increasingly becoming widespread in refugee protection, humanitarian intervention, responsibility to protect, development and security practice, peace building and conflict resolution. Human security is people centered. This means people (refugees) should be at the center of protection decisions and policies made by governments, UNHCR and NGOs. This would mean listening and consulting refugees in matters affecting their security. Refugees need not to be mere recipients but participants of their security and protection.