Rights Group Says US Deportations to African Countries Break the Law

Table of Contents

• You might want to know
• Main Topic
• Key Insights Table
• Afterwards...

You might want to know

• Why does Human Rights Watch say deporting migrants to African countries where they are not citizens may violate international law?
• What have deportees and governments said about their treatment, safety, and onward transfers?

Main Topic

Human Rights Watch (HRW), an international campaign group, says that the United States’ practice of deporting migrants to African countries where they are not citizens is unlawful and exploits human suffering as a means of discouraging migration. In a report, the group argues that many people affected by the policy have little practical choice but to return to their countries of origin, even when they fear harm there. HRW says this raises serious questions about whether the transfers protect people or expose them to risks that US authorities should take into account.

According to the group, more than 500 people have been sent to African countries where they are not citizens since Donald Trump returned to the White House in 2025, citing US data. Immigration enforcement was one of Trump’s key pledges during the 2024 election. The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has defended third-country removals, describing them as “an essential public safety tool” used to remove what it calls “the most dangerous criminal illegal aliens from our streets.”

HRW disputes the implication that these transfers are simply a matter of public safety. It says some receiving countries have arbitrarily detained deportees or sent them onward to their countries of origin, where they may face persecution or torture. The report describes people sent to Eswatini, Ghana and South Sudan as having been arbitrarily detained and subjected to ill-treatment while in detention. It also says deportees in Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea and Ghana were sent to their countries of origin despite the risk of violating the principle of nonrefoulement—the rule that people should not be sent to a place where they face torture, cruel treatment, or threats to their life or freedom.

The report’s central concern is that a person can be removed from the United States to a country with which they have no meaningful connection, then face uncertainty about what will happen next. HRW cites an unnamed US official who reportedly told a Senate hearing that the purpose of the policy was to enable the administration to “threaten people that they will literally be dropped in the middle of nowhere.” The group summarized the alleged rationale in blunt terms: “The point is to scare people.”

Michael Garcia Bochenek, HRW’s interim US programme director, said that sending people to countries where they have never set foot forms part of a policy intended to cause human suffering in order to deter migration. This is HRW’s characterization of the policy and its purpose; the US government has presented a different justification, emphasizing public safety and assurances from destination countries.

In a statement to the BBC, DHS said that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) receives diplomatic assurances from destination countries that people removed there will be safe. The department added that once an individual is no longer in ICE custody, ICE is no longer responsible for them. HRW’s report, however, argues that the risks do not end when US custody ends. It describes detention, onward transfers, and uncertainty over whether people can safely return home as concerns requiring scrutiny.

Eswatini has received 32 deportees from the US. The country recently said that three people from Yemen, Belize and Laos had “voluntarily departed” for their home countries. While none of the African countries named in HRW’s report had commented on the report, Eswatini said, when announcing the departures, that it was committed to ensuring the “rights, dignity and well-being of third-country nationals were respected and protected.” These statements describe the government’s position; they do not, by themselves, resolve HRW’s questions about the circumstances of each person’s transfer or return.

HRW said it interviewed 24 third-country nationals in six countries: Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini and South Sudan. Interviewees described what the group called abusive treatment during deportation flights. Some said they had been chained for about 18 hours and were not told where they were going. They also reported being denied essential medication and often receiving insufficient food or water. HRW presents these accounts as testimony from the people it interviewed; the report’s wider argument is that opaque transfer arrangements make it difficult to understand, monitor, or challenge what happens to deportees.

The group says that some of the arrangements enabling transfers are secret or otherwise opaque. It argues that this lack of transparency prevents affected people and the public from knowing what protections destination countries have promised, what happens after arrival, and whether onward removal is likely. HRW describes these arrangements as part of a US policy that violates international human rights law. Evaluating that claim involves examining both the circumstances of each individual case and the legal obligations that apply to removal, detention, and protection from return to danger.

The report also raises concerns about sexual orientation and gender identity. HRW says that at least a dozen people who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) were sent to African states that criminalise same-sex relations. Among them, the group says, were refugees who had been granted protection in the United States because they were likely to face persecution in their home countries based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Their cases illustrate the potential contradiction between prior protection decisions and later transfers to places where similar risks may arise.

One case described in the report involves a Nigerian man deported from the United States initially to Ghana. In November, he told the BBC he feared returning to Nigeria after he and five others were secretly transferred to Togo. He said that his association with a separatist activist group could lead to arrest and torture if he returned. His account points to the layered nature of some cases: a transfer may begin in one destination country, continue to another, and leave the individual uncertain about whether return to the country of origin will follow.

HRW also discussed deportations to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo). A US lawyer reportedly told the group that of 15 people from Colombia, Peru and Ecuador deported to the country in April, none remained there by late September, with 11 having returned to their home countries. HRW said the uncertainty and conditions they faced in DR Congo raised questions about whether their returns to their countries of origin were genuinely voluntary. The report does not treat the fact of departure alone as proof of free choice; it asks whether people had realistic alternatives and were able to make decisions without pressure or unsafe conditions.

Equatorial Guinea, which received 65 people, quickly sent at least two people to their home countries, according to HRW. Burundi, meanwhile, announced late last month that it had agreed to receive migrants deported from the United States. The report’s examples show that the policy involves a number of countries and different routes, while the available details vary from case to case.

These accounts leave several questions open. DHS says diplomatic assurances are obtained and frames removals as a public safety measure. HRW says that interviews and reported onward transfers point to risks of arbitrary detention, mistreatment, and return to places where deportees may face serious harm. The competing claims make transparency central: clear information about agreements, safeguards, individual assessments, and outcomes would help clarify what protections exist in practice and whether they are effective.

Key Insights Table

Afterwards...

The dispute over third-country deportations is likely to remain focused on whether assurances, monitoring, and individual assessments provide meaningful protection after people leave US custody. HRW’s report calls attention to the consequences described by deportees, while DHS maintains that destination countries provide safety assurances and that removals serve public safety. Further clarity about transfer agreements, treatment in receiving countries, and the circumstances of onward returns would help establish how these policies operate in practice. At the heart of the issue is whether migration enforcement can be carried out without exposing people to foreseeable harm or undermining their rights.

The report’s cases also underline the importance of examining each person’s circumstances, including prior protection decisions and specific fears of persecution. As more countries agree to receive deported migrants, transparent procedures and independent oversight may become increasingly important to determining whether promised safeguards are respected and whether people can challenge decisions that put their safety at risk.

Source: BBC Africa