By Idris Abubakar
(Democracy and Development Studies)
Introduction
The third-country deportation program is a U.S. immigration policy that relocates non-citizens—typically individuals who have completed prison terms or been deemed inadmissible—to third countries with which they have no direct connection. Rather than returning deportees to their countries of origin, Washington relies on agreements with other governments, often in Africa or Latin America, to detain or host such individuals.
Revived by the Trump administration in 2024/2025, the policy has sparked significant international criticism for its ethical, legal, and human rights implications.
The Case of Eswatini: A Test Model
In 2025, the Kingdom of Eswatini became a test case when it accepted five deportees from the United States—citizens of Jamaica, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and Yemen—under a classified bilateral arrangement. These individuals were reportedly placed in a correctional facility under an opaque agreement between Washington and Mbabane. Reports indicated that Eswatini requested up to $500 million in compensation, prompting strong condemnation from rights organizations that labeled the deal unconstitutional and in violation of international human rights standards.
This incident illustrates how smaller, economically dependent nations can become instrumentalized in U.S. migration management strategies, often at the cost of transparency and sovereignty.
Third-Country Deportations: A Global Context
Outsourcing deportations, also known as migration externalization, is an evolving strategy in global migration governance (European Liberal Forum, 2024). Wealthier nations increasingly contract less-developed countries to intercept, detain, or process migrants before they reach their intended destinations (Sherman-Stokes, 2020).
The practice gained international prominence with Australia’s Pacific Solution in 2001, which rerouted asylum seekers to offshore detention centers in Nauru and Papua New Guinea (Wood, 2002). The European Union later adopted similar models through agreements with Libya, Tunisia, and Niger (Kandilige & Yeboah, 2024). These deals, while framed as efforts to strengthen border control, have been widely criticized for perpetuating human rights abuses and deflecting responsibility (Amnesty International, 2025).
Within Africa, migration externalization has expanded notably over the past two decades. The 2017 EU–Libya agreement remains a focal point of controversy due to extensive documentation of human rights violations, including torture and trafficking. Rwanda’s asylum partnership with the United Kingdom has also drawn global scrutiny, exposing tensions between sovereignty, ethics, and human rights (BBC News, 2024).
Across the Atlantic, the United States has employed comparable strategies through “safe third-country” agreements with Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, reflecting a consistent pattern of outsourcing migration responsibilities (Amnesty International, 2025).
As of 2025, reports indicate the United States is pursuing similar agreements with Eswatini, Rwanda, South Sudan, and Uganda, expanding the externalization frontier into Africa (Global Detention Project, 2025).
Critical Review of the U.S. Third-Country Deportation Policy
Administrative and Political Motivations
From Washington’s standpoint, third-country deportations are framed as a pragmatic solution to logistical and diplomatic challenges in enforcing removals, especially where origin countries are uncooperative or unstable (Sherman-Stokes, 2020). However, beneath this administrative rationale lie strong political motivations.
The Trump administration used immigration enforcement as a central feature of its political brand. Reviving controversial deportation policies served as a symbol of toughness and deterrence, reinforcing populist narratives that portrayed migrants as threats to national security and economic stability (Deutsche Welle, 2025).
Justification Narratives
Three dominant narratives underpin the policy:
1. Security: Deportees are framed as potential threats, justifying expedited removals.
2. Deterrence: Harsh deportation destinations are intended to discourage future unlawful migration.
3. Cost-saving: By transferring responsibilities to partner states in exchange for aid or concessions, the U.S. reduces domestic enforcement costs (Global Detention Project, 2025).
While these justifications provide political cover, they obscure humanitarian consequences and raise serious ethical concerns.
Legality and International Law
The policy appears inconsistent with the principle of non-refoulement, a cornerstone of international refugee and human rights law. Non-refoulement prohibits the transfer of individuals to any country where they may face persecution or harm (Sippy, 2025).
Deportations to fragile states such as South Sudan or Eswatini—both with poor human rights records—contravene this principle, particularly when deportees lack access to legal recourse or asylum review (Yemisi & Mandil, 2025).
Implications for Africa
1. Governance and Sovereignty:
Secretive agreements bypass national legislatures, undermining accountability and enabling foreign interference in domestic policy (Al Jazeera, 2025).
2. Human Rights and Due Process:
Many host nations lack judicial safeguards, resulting in arbitrary detention and denial of legal representation (Amnesty International, 2025).
3. Institutional Strain:
Overcrowded and underfunded correctional systems face additional burdens from housing non-national deportees (Rahman, 2025).
4. Reputational Risks:
African governments that enter such deals risk being viewed as selling sovereignty for financial aid, eroding both domestic legitimacy and international credibility (Deutsche Welle, 2025).
5. Perceived Benefits:
Some governments see potential advantages—financial aid, diplomatic goodwill, trade concessions, or military assistance (Lawal, 2025). However, these benefits are typically short-term and politically expedient.
Implications for Nigeria
Given Nigeria’s geopolitical importance and large diaspora population in the United States, the country could be considered a potential partner for future third-country deportation deals. However, such participation would have grave implications.
Risks
– Bilateral Strain: Cooperation could provoke public outrage, damaging U.S.–Nigeria relations and domestic legitimacy.
– Security Threats: Admitting deportees unconnected to Nigeria may pose risks to national security and exacerbate prison overcrowding.
– Legal Violations: Such agreements could breach Nigeria’s constitutional and international obligations against arbitrary detention (Sippy, 2025).
– Reputational Damage: Nigeria’s global image as a defender of human rights could suffer severely.
Potential Benefits
If carefully negotiated, Nigeria could potentially leverage U.S. interest to obtain concessions—such as counterterrorism support, technology transfers, or trade access under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Yet these gains would be marginal compared to the long-term political and social costs.
Policy Recommendations for Nigeria
1. Categorical Rejection: Nigeria should reject participation in any third-country deportation programs that undermine sovereignty or human rights.
2. Diplomatic Engagement: Abuja must clarify its position through constructive dialogue with Washington, emphasizing rights-based migration cooperation.
3. Regional Coordination: Collaborate with ECOWAS and the African Union to develop a unified stance against migration outsourcing.
4. Institutional Transparency: Ensure parliamentary oversight of all migration-related agreements to maintain accountability and public trust.
5. Human Rights Compliance: Strengthen domestic reintegration frameworks for returning Nigerian nationals.
6. Civil Society Mobilization: Support CSOs in advocating for migrant protections and challenging unlawful deportations through legal mechanisms.
Conclusion
The U.S. third-country deportation program represents a broader trend in the global politics of migration—where wealthier states externalize border control and human rights responsibilities to weaker nations. For Africa, and particularly Nigeria, participation in such schemes risks eroding sovereignty, damaging democratic credibility, and undermining legal and moral obligations under international law.
Nigeria must therefore position itself as a champion of rights-based migration governance, resisting external pressures while strengthening its own institutions and regional leadership.
