lukman-hakim
Human Rights Watch (HRW) has published a scathing report alleging that the United States is unlawfully deporting migrants to third-party African countries, a practice the advocacy group describes as deliberately designed to inflict suffering as a means of deterring future migration. The report, released this week, argues that these transfers violate international human rights law and leave vulnerable individuals stranded in nations where they have no legal status, no community ties, and often no means of supporting themselves.
According to data cited by HRW, more than 500 people have been sent to African countries where they are not citizens since Donald Trump returned to the White House in early 2025. These deportations form part of a broader immigration enforcement strategy that Trump made a central pillar of his 2024 election campaign. The individuals targeted are typically those whom the US cannot repatriate to their home countries—either because their nations of origin refuse to accept them or because court orders prevent their removal to those specific destinations.
The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has defended the practice, framing third-country removals as a necessary tool for public safety. In a statement provided to the BBC, the department said such measures "remove the most dangerous criminal illegal aliens from our streets." DHS also asserted that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) receives diplomatic assurances from destination countries that deported individuals will be safe, and that once a person is no longer in ICE custody, the agency bears no further responsibility for their wellbeing.
However, HRW's findings paint a starkly different picture. The group conducted interviews with 24 third-country nationals across six countries—Cameroon, the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, and South Sudan. Many of those interviewed described abusive treatment during deportation flights, including being shackled for approximately 18 hours without knowledge of their final destination. They also reported being denied access to essential medications and frequently receiving insufficient food or water during the journey.
The report further alleges that some deportees were arbitrarily detained upon arrival and subjected to ill-treatment while in custody. In Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, and Ghana, HRW says deportees were subsequently sent back to their countries of origin despite facing risks that would violate the principle of nonrefoulement—an established tenet of international law prohibiting the return of individuals to nations where they face torture, cruel treatment, or threats to their life and freedom.
HRW's interim US programme director, Michael Garcia Bochenek, condemned the policy in unambiguous terms. "Deporting people to countries where they have never set foot is part of a US policy designed to cause human suffering as a means to deter migration," he said. The report also cites an unnamed US official who reportedly told a Senate hearing that the administration's objective was to "threaten people that they will literally be dropped in the middle of nowhere," adding that "the point is to scare people."
The White House has offered a different rationale. Spokesperson Lauren Bis told the BBC that those sent to third countries are individuals whose home nations have refused to accept them or who are protected by court orders preventing their return home. She also emphasized that any undocumented immigrant who wishes to return to their country of origin voluntarily will be provided with a free flight and a $3,000 payment. This offer, however, does little to address the situation of those who cannot safely return home due to persecution or torture risks.
Among the most troubling findings in the HRW report is that at least a dozen individuals who identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender were deported to African states where same-sex relations are criminalized. Some of these individuals had been granted refugee protection in the United States precisely because they faced a likelihood of persecution in their home countries based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. Their transfer to countries with hostile legal environments raises serious questions about the US government's adherence to its own asylum commitments.
The experiences of individual deportees underscore the human toll of these policies. A Nigerian man deported initially to Ghana recounted to the BBC how he and five others were secretly transferred to Togo without notice. He expressed deep fears about returning to Nigeria, where his association with a separatist activist group could result in arrest and torture. His case illustrates the cascading uncertainty faced by deportees who are moved between multiple countries with little transparency or regard for their safety.
HRW also highlighted specific instances of rapid onward transfers. Equatorial Guinea, which received 65 deportees, quickly sent at least two individuals back to their home countries. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, a US lawyer informed HRW that of the 15 people deported there from Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador in April, none remained by late September—11 had already returned to their home countries. The group questioned whether these returns were genuinely voluntary, given the uncertainty and difficult conditions the deportees faced in the DRC.
Eswatini, which accepted 32 deportees from the US, announced this week that three individuals—from Yemen, Belize, and Laos—had "voluntarily departed" to their home countries. The kingdom stated that it remains committed to ensuring the rights, dignity, and well-being of third-country nationals are respected and protected. However, none of the other African countries named in the report have issued public comments on HRW's allegations.
The report also draws attention to the opaque nature of the agreements facilitating these transfers. HRW notes that some deals remain secret, preventing public scrutiny and accountability. The group argues that this lack of transparency is itself part of a policy framework that violates international human rights law. Burundi recently announced that it had agreed to accept migrants deported from the US, signaling that the list of destination countries may continue to grow.
The implications of these findings extend beyond the individuals directly affected. By sending migrants to countries where they face detention, ill-treatment, or onward deportation to dangerous circumstances, the US may be undermining its own stated commitment to human rights and refugee protection. The policy also raises questions about the responsibility of receiving nations, many of which lack the resources or legal frameworks to adequately process and protect third-country nationals.
As the Trump administration continues to prioritize immigration enforcement, the debate over third-country deportations is likely to intensify. HRW's report adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that the policy's deterrent effect comes at an unacceptable humanitarian cost. Whether through diplomatic pressure, legal challenges, or public advocacy, the practice now faces heightened scrutiny from human rights organizations and concerned observers worldwide.
Comments (0)