A fresh debate has erupted in Uganda over the naming of the Ebola Bundibugyo virus strain, with diplomats, journalists, and sections of the public questioning why a deadly disease variant continues to carry the name of a Ugandan district despite modern World Health Organization naming protocols discouraging the use of geographic locations.
The controversy intensified after the Ministry of Health confirmed that a Congolese national who died at Kibuli Hospital had tested positive for the Ebola Bundibugyo strain.
Authorities later confirmed a second case involving another Congolese national, triggering heightened border surveillance and emergency prevention measures.
In response to the outbreak threat that has since been reported in Mubende, too, President Museveni postponed this year’s Uganda Martyrs Day celebrations over fears that mass gatherings involving pilgrims from eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo could accelerate transmission.
Congolese pilgrims who had already arrived in Kasese were turned back earlier this week.
However, many Ugandans argue that the current international narrative is unfairly portraying Uganda as the source of the outbreak, despite officials maintaining that all confirmed infections were imported from DR Congo and that Uganda has so far recorded zero local transmission cases.
Among the strongest voices raising concern is Rosa Malango, Uganda’s Special Presidential Envoy on Tourism and Trade and former United Nations Resident Coordinator.
Malango pointed to WHO protocols adopted in recent years discouraging the naming of diseases after geographic locations, ethnic groups, cultures, occupations, or animals because of the risk of stigma and economic harm.
“The WHO explicitly advises against using geographic locations, cultural references and similar identifiers in disease names to avoid backlash, prejudice and economic harm. Naming this virus after a district in Uganda violates this principle,” Malango wrote.
She argued that Uganda’s reputation as a continental leader in epidemic preparedness was being unfairly undermined by messaging that appeared to suggest the disease originated in the country.
“The current narrative is making it sound as if the virus originated here and as if we have local transmission cases. None of which is true,” she said.
Malango further defended Uganda’s public health systems, saying the country had built one of Africa’s strongest epidemiological monitoring and response mechanisms under the leadership of Museveni, particularly through years of managing cross-border Ebola threats originating from eastern DR Congo.
“This experience also served as a basis for the effectiveness of our response to COVID-19,” she noted.
Her comments echoed sentiments expressed by Samson Kasumba, a news anchor at Next Media, who openly questioned the WHO’s intentions.
“Ebola has never come from Uganda. Why do you call it this name, WHO? What is your agenda? Why not a name in the DRC villages where it actually comes from? There is a motive here and it is deliberate,” Kasumba posted online.
WHO has yet to comment on the matter.
Why the Virus Still Carries the Bundibugyo Name
The Ebola Bundibugyo strain was first identified in 2007 during an outbreak in Bundibugyo District in the Rwenzori region of western Uganda near the Congolese border.
According to WHO historical records, the outbreak infected more than 130 people and caused at least 37 deaths. Scientists later confirmed it as a previously unknown species of the Ebola virus, distinct from the Sudan and Zaire strains already known at the time.
Under the scientific conventions used then, newly identified viruses were often named after the locations where they were first detected. Similar examples include the Ebola Zaire strain and the Marburg virus, which was named after the German city where laboratory outbreaks occurred in 1967.
However, disease naming practices changed significantly years later.
In 2015, following global criticism over names such as “Middle East Respiratory Syndrome” (MERS) and “Swine Flu,” the World Health Organisation issued formal best-practice guidelines urging scientists, governments, and the media to avoid naming new human diseases after:
- Geographic locations
- People’s names
- Animal species
- Cultural references
- Occupations
- Terms likely to incite fear
WHO warned that such naming could trigger discrimination, unnecessary trade restrictions, tourism losses, and stigma against communities or countries.
The guidelines were later widely applied during the naming of COVID-19 variants, where WHO adopted Greek letters such as Alpha, Delta, and Omicron specifically to avoid associating variants with countries where they were first detected.
Health experts note, however, that the Bundibugyo name remains because it was officially assigned years before the 2015 WHO reforms and is now embedded within global scientific classification systems for Ebola species.
Renaming established virus species is uncommon because it can create confusion in scientific literature, medical databases, vaccine development records, and historical epidemiology tracking.
Nevertheless, Ugandan critics argue that continuing to prominently use the name in public communications without context unfairly harms Uganda’s image at a time when the country is aggressively marketing itself as a tourism and investment destination.
Malango said Uganda should instead be recognised for its preventive response measures rather than being grouped with outbreak epicentres.
“Uganda’s listing as an affected country normally depends on local transmissions and as of this moment we have registered zero local transmissions,” she said.
She also warned against alarmist communication styles, saying some public messaging and imagery surrounding Ebola can create unnecessary panic and economic damage.
“We must communicate clearly and specifically without using images, fonts and colours that cause alarm,” she added, while praising communication efforts by the Uganda Media Centre and the Uganda Tourism Board.
