U.S. Deportation Deals with African Nations: A Growing Controversy
Since 2017 the United States has pursued an aggressive deportation agenda, aiming to remove record numbers of non‑citizens from its territory. As part of this effort, Washington has negotiated agreements with at least ten African governments to accept individuals whose home countries refuse to take them back. While the arrangements are framed as security or economic partnerships, they have sparked criticism across the continent for their opacity, potential human‑rights risks, and perceived neo‑colonial overtones.
How the Agreements Work
Under the deals, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) transfers people who are nationals of countries such as Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Jamaica, or Myanmar to African states that have consented to receive them. The receiving nations are not the deportees’ countries of origin; instead, they act as third‑party hosts.
Analysts suggest that incentives for African states often include:
- Tariff exemptions or preferential trade terms under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA)
- Access to U.S. security assistance or military training programmes
- Financial aid or infrastructure loans
- Visa‑waiver privileges for government officials
These motivations were highlighted by Aimée‑Noël Mbiyozo, senior research advisor at the Institute for Security Studies, who noted that “many African states have entered into agreements to avoid tariffs or visa restrictions, or to obtain financing or security” (ISS, 2023).
Case Study: Eswatini and the Reception of Violent Offenders
In July 2023 the United States deported five men to Eswatini who had been convicted of serious crimes, including child rape and murder. Tricia McLaughlin, Deputy Secretary at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, described the individuals as “uniquely barbaric” and said their home countries had declined to accept them (BBC, July 2023).
The Eswatini government has not disclosed whether any financial compensation accompanied the transfer. Local civil society groups raised alarms that the nation’s correctional facilities lack the capacity to manage high‑risk offenders, prompting fears of increased violence and inadequate rehabilitation (Times of Eswatini, August 2023).
Legal Push‑Back in Ghana
Ghana’s agreement with the United States, which has seen at least 60 deportees hosted since September 2022, became the subject of a lawsuit filed at the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court in Abuja. The plaintiffs, an international coalition of human‑rights lawyers, argue that Ghana violated the principle of non‑refoulement by agreeing to process individuals who may face persecution in their eventual destinations.
Oliver Barker‑Vormayor, a Ghanaian lawyer and activist, explained: “Ghana cannot become a mechanism by which people are transferred from one jurisdiction to another without serious consideration of the dangers they face. The principle of non‑refoulement exists because the international community has recognized that no one should be returned to a place where they face persecution, torture or serious threats to their dignity and security.” (GhanaWeb, September 2023).
Expert Perspectives on Sovereignty and Public Trust
Daniel Silke, a political analyst based in Cape Town, told African Business that many citizens view these deals as evidence of external pressure on African governments:
“I think that many African citizens in these countries are skeptical about the role of hegemonic superpowers – they would like their governments to be much more independent and not bow to pressure on a variety of issues, and that would certainly include deporting criminals to African jurisdictions.”
Silke warned that while short‑term trade or security benefits might appear attractive, the long‑term risk includes domestic unrest if populations perceive their leaders as compromising national sovereignty for U.S. concessions (African Business, October 2023).
The “America First” Context
The deportation initiatives align with the broader “America First” foreign‑policy approach adopted by the Trump administration, which prioritises perceived U.S. national security and economic interests. Critics argue that this framework often treats international partnerships as transactional exchanges rather than collaborative engagements grounded in mutual respect.
Data from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security shows that fiscal year 2022 recorded over 140,000 removals, a figure the administration has repeatedly cited as evidence of fulfilling its campaign pledge to conduct “the largest deportation operation in American history” (DHS Yearbook 2022).
Conclusion: Balancing Pragmatism with Principle
The United States’ reliance on African nations as de‑portation destinations raises critical questions about human‑rights compliance, governmental accountability, and the true cost of so‑called “security” or “economic” incentives. While some African states may gain tangible benefits from the arrangements, the potential for reputational damage, legal challenges, and social unrest cannot be ignored.
For policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic, a transparent review process—featuring independent oversight, clear criteria for accepting deportees, and robust safeguards against refoulement—is essential. Only through such measures can the continent protect its citizens’ safety and uphold its international obligations while navigating the complexities of global migration governance.
