Deporting migrants to third countries shifts responsibility abroad and increases the chance of rights abuses, the organization has warned

What began as "discreet" migration deals between Washington and a handful of African governments has erupted into widespread controversy, with the African Union denouncing the agreements as a policy that risks turning the continent into a "dumping zone" for arbitrary expulsions.

So far, four African nations: Rwanda, Uganda, South Sudan, and Eswatini, are known to have signed accords allowing the US to transfer third-country migrants - people mostly with no ties to Africa - to their soil.

Nigeria, which has declared it will not accept foreign deportees from the US, has accused Washington of using visa restrictions and tariff hikes topressureAfrican countries into accepting migrants, including "some straight out of prisons."

Trump's hardline migration policy and what has happened since July

Since returning to office in January, Trump has reinstated a series of hardline immigration measures, delivering on campaign promises to undo what he called the "open border" policies of his predecessor, Joe Biden.

On July 15, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced it haddeportedfive "uniquely barbaric criminals" from Vietnam, Jamaica, Laos, Cuba, and Yemen to Eswatini, Africa's last absolute monarchy. Lawyers representing the men, whom the DHS described as convicted of crimes ranging from child rape to murder, have reportedly said they are being held in a maximum-security prison in the tiny southern African country with blocked access.

Days earlier, Washingtonremovedeight people convicted of crimes including murder, sexual assault, and robbery, who were either nearing the end of their prison terms or had already completed them, to war-torn South Sudan. One of the group is a South Sudanese national, while the others come from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, and Vietnam.

READ MORE: US deports migrants to another African state

Last week, Rwandaannouncedthat it had received the first seven deportees in mid-August under a bilateral agreement that could see the country host up to 250 people expelled from the US. A Rwandan official said Kigali would receive a grant from Washington in return, though the amount was not disclosed.

On August 21, Uganda's Foreign Ministryconfirmedthat it had concluded an "agreement for cooperation in the examination of protection requests" with the US to accept African migrants "who may not be granted asylum in the United States but are reluctant to or may have concerns about returning to their countries of origin." The ministry said individuals without criminal records would be admitted under the "temporary arrangement," which forms part of broader bilateral cooperation between Kampala and Washington.

Judicial actions and widespread pushback

The Department of Homeland Security's decision in February to extend rapid deportations to third countries triggered a class-action lawsuit from immigrant rights groups representing people who risked removal without notice or due process.

In April, US District Judge Brian Murphy ruled that such transfers "unquestionably" violated constitutional protections, but in June the US Supreme Court's conservative majority overturned that decision, allowing the White House to proceed. The DHS hailed the ruling as a "major victory," enabling deportations to countries willing to accept people whose home states refuse them.

Although the financial incentives remain unclear, the accords have drawn sharp criticism from rights groups and prompted an unusually strong rebuke from the AU's human-rights body, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (ACHPR).The Trump administration's arrangements with Uganda, Rwanda, Eswatini, and South Sudan "are part of a logic of externalizing migration responsibilities and expose the persons concerned to increased risks of violations of their fundamental rights," the ACHPR said in astatementon Monday.

The Commission argued that the deals sidestep continental consultation, shift burdens onto vulnerable states, and may contravene core legal "principles of non-refoulement, the prohibition of collective expulsions," and the rights to dignity and asylum.

It has advised Rwanda, Uganda, and other African states against adopting policies likely to transform the continent into a "dumping zone," urging governments instead to ensure transparency in agreements and guarantee the safety of transferred migrants.

What do UN agencies say?

UN human rights expertswarnedin July that the US resuming third-country deportations raises serious human rights risks, particularly around protection, due process, and potential chain refoulement.

They have urged Washington to "refrain from any further removals to third countries, to ensure effective access to legal assistance for those facing deportation, and for all such procedures to be subject to independent judicial oversight."

(RT.com)