The United States intensified its deployment of third-country deportations in 2025, a policy in which immigrants are deported not to their home country, but to other countries that the US considers to be safe. Ghana, Rwanda and Eswatini were important destinations, and in April Ghana was receiving 14 deportees, 13 of them Nigerians and one Gambian. These people were not registered as having any links with Ghana and their deportation posed a major legal and humanitarian challenge in the region.
Deportees claimed to be taken out of the US custody without even a notice, bound down with severe force such as straitjacket, and carried by military planes. Some were relocated to Togo where they were abandoned, unidentified and unaccompanied on arrival in Ghana. Local government and non-governmental organizations referred to the deportations as haphazard, where there was no proper coordination, and no definite legal footing to the removals, particularly where the individuals had no Ghanaian citizenship or family ties.
Legal and human rights contradictions
Others who were deported included those who had outstanding court orders stopping their deportation to their native countries because of allegations of political persecution or torture. The legal activists say that deporting them to a third country is a contravention of the domestic laws as well as international non-refoulement. A US federal judge admitted that there were legal ambiguities but that jurisdiction ceases when the person is physically taken off the US soil and this literally left a loophole in the legal protections.
Attorneys who have worked with the impacted migrants have sued US federal courts and regional human rights agencies claiming a breach of due process and illegal detention. Even the Ghanaian government has been under legal scrutiny by advocacy groups in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), who have criticised the legality of taking into its borders people who lack valid travel documents or bilateral agreements.
Rights at risk during and after deportation
Reports coming out of African cities like the Accra and the Lome states have meant that deportees are not met kindly. They do not have access to housing, food, and legal assistance and local authorities are not always ready to see them suddenly. There have been cases where the deportees were re-detained or advised to go back to the country and this led to a cycle of displacement which runs against the international refugee protection.
Rights groups such as the Human Rights First and the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights have condemned the deportations stating that the removals are in violation of the United Nations Convention against Torture and the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Governmental and diplomatic responses
The Ghanaian officials justified their position through the regional mobility agreement of ECOWAS that allowed citizens in member states to enter without visas. Critics however, point out that visa-free movement is not the same thing as legal residency or the right to resettlement. The foreign ministry of Ghana rejected the compensation the US had paid the country to accept deportees and described the acceptance as a humanitarian intervention in line with Pan-African solidarity.
In practice, the government of Ghana has been exposed to domestic political disapproval over what is perceived to be an unsanctioned arrangement with the US by some citizens. It has been urged by members of Parliament in Ghana that an inquiry should be made into the method used to arrive at the decision made and whether it is in accordance with the immigration laws of the country.
Nigeria and the challenge of repatriation
The Nigerian government was caught unawares by its own citizens entering the country through Ghana and it was accusing the US of its inability to organize the repatriation with Abuja. Nigerian leaders said they would be happy to receive deported nationals but they would not allow other citizens to be channeled to the country through dubious agreements. They have sought an official explanation of the same between the US and Ghana.
Such diplomatic tensions reveal how weak the US-Africa partnership is in managing migration, particularly where unilateral enforcing measures are going against the local legal framework and sovereignty.
The human cost and community impact
Humanitarian workers in West Africa interviewing deportees have reported that such deportees face long-term psychological trauma. Some of them spent long durations of up to 12 months in immigration detention facilities in the US. Conditions were also said to have got worse with the growth of military-operated detention centers along the border states with deportees claiming overcrowding, absence of legal representation, and medical care
One deportee recounted being separated from his family and deported to a country he had never visited, stating:
“They told me I was going home, but I don’t even know where I am.”
Such testimonies underline the opaque nature of the deportation process and the absence of individualized consideration.
Community strain and reintegration challenges
The receiving countries are not used to receiving deportees and local communities are not always prepared. With no prior planning or support services, people are homeless or dependent on the already frazilated NGOs. In Accra and Lome, there were some reports of deportees sleeping in parks or bus terminals, which have raised concerns on the health and safety of the population.
The scenario also destroys community confidence and subjects the local authority to a heavy burden since they might not have the ability or legal requirement to accommodate non-citizens who have been forced into their domain. Certain governors of regions have requested international organizations to help them deal with the humanitarian consequences of such returns.
Policy drivers and future implications
The third-country deportation plan is in line with the previous policy precedent established under the Executive Order 13768 signed by Donald Trump in 2017, that expanded the list of people who can be removed. Several enforcement instruments were also retained by the Biden administration throughout this time, although by 2025 new surges of illegal immigrants and political pressure led to the resurgence of aggressive removal efforts.
With new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) protocols, removals to third countries have been expedited and not subjected to a lot of judicial scrutiny. According to the internal documents received by legal advocacy organizations, the number of deportations to African countries grew by 38 percent in the period between January and August 2025 against the same time period in 2024.
International criticism and calls for reform
In July 2025, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) also released a statement urging the US to cease all third-country deportations that do not have legal protections. The agency focused on the importance of risk evaluations and transparency at the individual level. African Union officials, meanwhile, have started consultations on how to establish a continental architecture to respond to deportee reception and reintegration with the understanding that the brunt of sudden US policy changes is being borne by low- and middle-income countries.
The bilateral agreements between the US and African governments are still in progress, although slowly. Proponents are concerned that nothing will be done to address the issue of violating international law unless there is an entry-wide examination of deportation processes and the lives of migrants are left suspended.
The expanding use of third-country deportations in 2025 highlights a troubling evolution in US deportation policies, one that increasingly prioritizes speed over scrutiny and enforcement over human dignity. As legal avenues for appeal narrow and cooperation with African governments becomes a tool for policy outsourcing, the risks to vulnerable individuals grow sharper. The challenge now lies in crafting a migration strategy that safeguards both borders and basic rights. How the US chooses to respond may define not only its global human rights standing but also its capacity for principled diplomacy in a complex international landscape.
