After weeks of monitoring, testing and uncertainty, Uganda has officially declared the 2026 Ebola outbreak over, with Health Minister Dr. Chris Baryomunsi announcing that the country is now Ebola-free.
The declaration came after Uganda successfully completed the mandatory 42-day monitoring period without recording any new Ebola infections.
“I am pleased to announce that Uganda has officially declared the end of the 2026 Ebola disease outbreak. Today, as we speak now, Uganda is Ebola-free,” Baryomunsi said.
But behind the declaration was a scientific decision that attracted questions why did Uganda count the 42 days from June 16 instead of the discharge date of the last Ebola patient at Mulago National Referral Hospital?
The Health Minister explained that the decision was based on science and the nature of the cases Uganda handled during the outbreak.
According to Baryomunsi, the 42-day countdown started on June 16, 2026, after the discharge of the last locally transmitted Ebola patient.
Although the last Ebola patient admitted at Mulago National Referral Hospital was discharged on July 17, 2026, health experts reviewed the circumstances surrounding that case and determined that the patient did not pose a transmission risk.
“Traditionally, we have been counting from the last patient discharged, like we communicated a month ago, but we have since reviewed the science,” Baryomunsi explained.
Why 42 days?
The minister said the 42-day period is based on Ebola’s incubation period.
Ebola symptoms usually appear between two and 21 days after infection. Therefore, health authorities monitor for two complete incubation cycles 42 days to confirm that no undetected transmission is taking place.
“Why do you count 42 days? You count 42 days because the incubation period of Ebola is 21 days. When you get infected, you can develop symptoms in a period of two to 21 days,” Baryomunsi said.
He explained that the purpose of the countdown is to allow enough time for any person who may have been exposed to develop symptoms.
“If there was an infection somewhere in the country which we had not detected, within 42 days it would have come out through symptoms. That is why we count two cycles,” he said.
Why Uganda did not count from the Congolese patient’s discharge
Baryomunsi said the final patient discharged from Mulago was a Congolese national who entered Uganda under unusual circumstances.
According to the minister, the man entered the country hidden inside a cargo truck and later contacted authorities after arriving.
He said investigations showed that the patient did not come into contact with anyone who could have been exposed to Ebola.
“He hid and came as luggage, as part of the contents of the cargo truck. When he reached town, he called and then he came and was hospitalized,” Baryomunsi said.
“So he did not expose his sickness to any person that we confirmed. There is no contact, there is no person who was at risk from this person.”
The minister said health officials therefore went back to the previous Ebola patient, the one discharged on June 16 because that was the case that could have created a transmission risk.
“The one who could have been at risk is the other one of June 16. That is why now we counted the 42 days,” he said.
Baryomunsi insisted the decision was not influenced by administrative pressure but was guided by medical evidence.
“This is not witchcraft. This is science,” he said.
Uganda recorded 20 cumulative Ebola cases during the outbreak that was reported in May 2026.
The Ministry of Health said 17 patients recovered, while two deaths were recorded.
Of the confirmed cases, five were locally acquired, including four health workers, while 15 cases were imported, including cases linked to neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
The minister said health authorities successfully identified the source of infection, established the route of introduction, linked all confirmed cases and reconstructed the transmission chains.
“All confirmed cases were epidemiologically linked, transmission chains were completely characterized and reconstructed, and all identified contacts were institutionally quarantined and completed the mandatory 42-day follow-up without evidence of further transmission,” he said.
With the outbreak now officially over, Baryomunsi said Uganda will engage countries that imposed travel restrictions during the outbreak to review the measures.
He said Uganda is safe for international travel, tourism and investment.
“Nobody should fear coming to Uganda on the basis of the risk of Ebola,” he said.
The minister argued that international travel restrictions should be guided by science, noting that Ebola has existed in Africa for about 50 years but only a small number of cases have ever been exported outside the continent.
He said fewer than 30 Ebola cases have been exported from Africa globally, with most involving health workers who were evacuated for treatment after contracting the disease while responding to outbreaks.
How Uganda contained the outbreak
Ministry of Health Permanent Secretary Dr. Diana Atwine said Uganda’s preparedness systems played a major role in stopping the outbreak.
She explained that although Uganda had established health facilities around border areas before the outbreak, their capacity was increased after Ebola was detected.
She said the epicentre of concern was the border with the Democratic Republic of Congo, where Ebola cases continued to be reported.
“In Wera, we have got a full-fledged laboratory. In Fort Portal, we have a treatment unit there if we got more cases around,” Atwine said.
She added that Uganda also strengthened isolation centres and emergency response facilities, including in Arua, where suspected cases entering from the DRC were held and monitored.
The country improved rapid testing capacity, with the Arua facility able to provide results within four hours.
According to Atwine, Ebola response is not only about equipment but also ensuring availability of critical supplies such as personal protective equipment (PPE) to protect health workers.
She said Uganda’s health workers remained safe because of proper protection measures and strict infection prevention procedures.
Atwine revealed that government committed US$5 million(18,874,320,000 UGX (18.87 billion Ugandan Shillings)) towards the Ebola response.
She said development partners also supported the response through supplies, communication campaigns, deployment of personnel and other interventions, although their total financial contribution could not be immediately quantified.
She said government continued supporting Ebola prevention efforts in the DRC because controlling transmission across the border was important for Uganda’s own safety.
“If we do not support our people on the other side, it can cost lives,” she said.
Atwine said Uganda’s experience from previous Ebola outbreaks helped the country respond faster this time.
She credited mortality surveillance, community health systems, Village Health Teams (VHTs), emergency operations centres and experienced health workers for helping detect and contain the outbreak.
She said Uganda’s system allows authorities to receive alerts, test suspected cases quickly and respond before transmission spreads.
Atwine also emphasized that imported Ebola cases and locally transmitted outbreaks require different approaches.
“The protocol of local transmission and the protocol of imported cases are separate. We cannot mix them because the science and epidemiological picture are different,” she said.
Uganda has now closed the chapter on the 2026 Ebola outbreak, but health authorities say surveillance will continue, especially along the border with the DRC, which continues to battle Ebola cases.
For now, after 42 days of scientific monitoring, Uganda has passed the final test and declared itself Ebola-free.
