Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Africa: Public Policy under the New York Convention, with Particular Reference to Uganda

International arbitration depends on the ability to obtain recognition and enforcement where the losing party holds assets. The public-policy exception protects fundamental legal values but can undermine that system if it becomes an unrestricted appeal against an award. This article examines the exception under the New York Convention and Uganda's Arbitration and Conciliation Act, Cap 5, using doctrinal analysis and a purposive comparison of selected African and international decisions. It distinguishes incoming foreign-award enforcement from supervisory annulment, interim stays and execution against assets. The analysis finds a developing pro-enforcement approach in recent Ugandan decisions, alongside legitimate judicial concern about fraud, consent and serious procedural unfairness. Comparative authorities show that broad statements about illegality require careful attention to the applicable statute, the stage of proceedings and the issue actually decided. The article also finds that recognition at the seat does not automatically extinguish the award as a basis for enforcement elsewhere, while a stay pending appeal should not be reported as a final rejection on the merits. It proposes a structured public-policy inquiry requiring identification of the fundamental principle, reliable evidence of the alleged defect and a demonstrated connection between that defect and recognition or enforcement. Recommendations address pleading, judicial reasons, procedural records, linked publication of decisions and the separation of recognition from execution. The article concludes that predictable enforcement and protection against fundamental injustice are compatible where review remains principled, evidencebased and confined to the relevant legal ground.