The United States has expanded a controversial practice of deporting non-citizens to African nations with which they have no direct ties. Under newly signed bilateral agreements, Ghana, Eswatini, South Sudan, Rwanda and Uganda are now receiving people expelled from the US after their countries of origin refused to take them back.
Washington argues the policy helps ease immigration backlogs. But critics warn it risks violating international law and turning African states into transit or dumping zones for migrants with little or no connection to the continent.
From Quiet Deals to Flashpoints
In Ghana, 14 West Africans were flown in under the scheme, with several now held in military detention, according to court filings. Legal claims allege harsh and dehumanising treatment during transfer. Ghanaian officials deny liability for what occurred prior to arrival.
In Eswatini, five deportees from as far afield as Jamaica, Cuba, Vietnam, Yemen and Laos were accepted under a secret deal. Rights advocates report some were placed in solitary confinement without clear legal status. Court challenges are pending.
Meanwhile, Rwanda has agreed to resettle up to 250 deportees from the US, with vetting already underway. Officials describe the move as humanitarian, though critics say it uproots people into places where they have no ties.
Legal and Human Rights Concerns
Rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, warn the transfers may breach the principle of non-refoulement—the international duty not to expel individuals to places where they risk serious harm.
US District Judge Tanya Chutkan recently condemned the program for bypassing due process, though she ruled she lacked jurisdiction to block certain deportations. African legal experts argue many deportees had legitimate asylum claims that were disregarded.
African Governments Defend Deals
Participating governments have sought to justify their cooperation. Ghana’s President John Mahama said visa-free travel across West Africa makes Accra a natural hub for regional transfers. Eswatini insisted its public safety is protected and that deportees pose no threat.
Rwanda, which has previously struck migration deals with the UK, portrays its role as conditional resettlement, offering integration support to arrivals. But critics argue such packages cannot offset the trauma of being deported to unfamiliar countries under opaque arrangements.
Outlook: Balancing Diplomacy and Law
The deals place African leaders in a delicate position—balancing ties with Washington against rising domestic unease, court battles, and international scrutiny.
Civil society groups are demanding transparency, oversight of detention conditions, and guaranteed legal representation for deportees.
Whether these third-country deportation deals withstand legal and political backlash will determine not only the future of US-Africa migration cooperation, but also the broader global debate on outsourced asylum and deportation policies.
