Mediation in Practice
When an Election Dispute Turns Violent: Lessons from Uganda's Imvepi Refugee Settlement
A disputed camp election, two lives lost, and a settlement on edge — what it teaches every mediator about de-escalation and trust.
TL;DR
A refugee camp election dispute in Uganda escalated into deadly violence in under 48 hours. The presenting issue — one excluded candidate — sat on top of deeper grievances about fairness and voice. The fix required a blended mediation strategy: interest-based, transformative, insider, and restorative approaches working together. The same pattern shows up in disputes far smaller than this one.
In August 2026, a routine camp election in northern Uganda's Imvepi Refugee Settlement turned deadly. A dispute over one candidate's exclusion from the ballot escalated within hours into stone-throwing, arson, and gunfire. By the time order was restored, two refugees were dead, several buildings had burned, and more than forty people were in custody.
It's tempting to read this as a story with no bearing on the disputes we handle here in the DC area. It isn't. Imvepi is a case study in dynamics we see constantly, at a much smaller scale — in HOA boards, workplace grievance processes, and family conflicts: a group that feels structurally excluded, a process seen as unfair, and an authority that meets rising tension with force instead of dialogue.
What Happened
Imvepi's Refugee Welfare Council elections are meant to give the settlement's roughly 60,000 residents a formal voice in camp governance. When aspirant Loro Charles James was excluded from the nomination list, his supporters marched on the local police station demanding his reinstatement on the ballot. Police tried to hear grievances in an open field, but the demonstration turned violent — protesters burned the camp administration block, a police post, and a UNHCR office. Police opened fire to regain control, killing two refugees. Food distribution and schooling were suspended, and humanitarian staff were evacuated.
Why a Local Dispute Boiled Over
The immediate trigger — one candidate's exclusion — sat on top of long-standing grievances: competition for food and services, unclear governance procedures, and deep distrust between refugees and camp authorities. The election was supposed to be the pressure valve for those frustrations. When the process itself was seen as unfair, the valve failed.
The presenting dispute is almost never the whole conflict — it's the visible tip of grievances that have been building, unspoken, for far longer.
A Blended Mediation Strategy
Interest-based mediation reframes "Is Loro on the ballot, yes or no?" into "What would make everyone trust this process again?" — opening options a yes/no fight never could.
Transformative mediation shifts the goal from agreement to relationship, creating space for each side to recognize the other's legitimate fears before rushing to a settlement.
Insider/community mediation uses trusted local figures to open dialogue before official channels are ready — a parallel track that gives ordinary residents a voice sooner.
Restorative approaches address the harm already done, bringing affected families, injured officers, and detained youth into guided dialogue to begin rebuilding the community.
What This Means Closer to Home
- Ask what interest sits beneath the position — the demand on the table is rarely the whole story.
- Address the relationship, not just the agreement.
- Bring in voices with real trust, not just formal authority.
- Build in follow-through — an agreement without monitoring is just paper.
Imvepi is a reminder of what happens when a community's grievances go unheard long enough — and of how much a structured, trust-based dialogue process can still do, even after the worst has happened.
DC Mediation & Dispute Resolution Institute — civil, commercial, workplace, family, and community mediation across the DC Metro area and remotely nationwide.
dcmediationinstitute.com