- Analysts suggest leaders hope to improve ties with Washington, while reports also swirl of financial incentives

- ‘This exchange doesn’t look good … These people are being dumped in African countries. To me, in terms of whether it is shaping relations, it is shaping them in a negative way,’ says Nicodemus Minde, a researcher at the Institute for Security Studies in Nairobi

KIGALI, Rwanda

As the US government pushes forward with its pledge to carry out the largest mass deportation in history, African nations are increasingly stepping in as destinations for undocumented migrants.

Some governments say they are acting out of humanitarian duty or Pan-African solidarity, but the moves have sparked heated debate across Africa. Critics argue that what governments present as moral responsibility masks political calculations and potential financial incentives.

The response from African countries has been mixed.

Notably, Nigeria in July refused to bow to increased pressure to accept deported Venezuelans.

But Ghana earlier this month became the latest to welcome deportees, joining Rwanda, Uganda, Eswatini and South Sudan. Ghanaian authorities have confirmed that 14 deportees, including 13 Nigerians and one Gambian, had been flown in and returned to their home countries.

The willingness to sign migration agreements has fueled speculation about what African leaders hope to gain.

Nicodemus Minde, a researcher at the Institute for Security Studies in Nairobi, told Anadolu that such decisions are often aimed at improving diplomatic relations, which have shifted alongside the Trump administration’s trade, migration and aid policies.

“They are trying to get into the US’ good books, and they see these agreements as a good way to improve their standing,” he said.

Serious concerns overlooked

As an example, Minde pointed to Uganda, which has faced American sanctions over its human rights record, but last month announced a “temporary” deal to host third-country nationals denied asylum in the US.

In 2024, the US sanctioned current and former Ugandan officials for alleged involvement in corruption or human rights violations, charges they deny. A government report cited “arbitrary or unlawful killings; disappearances; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Along with international criticism, Uganda’s agreement has faced backlash at home.

“This approach ignores the deportees’ legal rights. Serious constitutional and foreign policy concerns are being overlooked,” Ugandan human rights lawyer Jeremiah Kwitonda told Anadolu.

He also suggested that Uganda accepted migrants due to pressure from US authorities.

Vincent Bagiire Waiswa, permanent secretary of Uganda’s Foreign Ministry, declined to discuss the topic when contacted by Anadolu, saying there were no modalities in place yet to execute the agreement.

But earlier, Bagiire told reporters that the temporary arrangement with the US stipulated that individuals with criminal records and unaccompanied minors would not be accepted.

Over in Rwanda, which announced in August that it would take up to 250 deportees from the US, the government has faced similar domestic criticism.

For Kigali, this is not the first such controversial deal, following the 2022 agreement with the UK to receive deported asylum seekers.

The UK had reportedly paid £240 million (nearly $325 million today) to facilitate the implementation of the five-year agreement, which Rwanda-based human rights lawyer Louis Gitinywa described as an “ill-advised” deal that was “ethically questionable on many levels.”

In July 2024, the Labour government of Prime Minister Keir Starmer scrapped the treaty amid numerous legal challenges and criticism by activists

Financial transactions?

Speculation about financial incentives has further fueled controversy.

For the new deal with the US, the Rwandan government has not divulged details of what the country could gain. However, an official with the Rwanda Governance Board, who requested anonymity, told Anadolu that Washington could pay Kigali in the form of a grant.

Yolande Makolo, spokesperson for the Rwandan government, did not respond to Anadolu requests for a comment.

Meanwhile, according to a report by The New York Times, Eswatini at one point requested $500 million to detain up to 150 deportees from various countries.

In a separate case, the same newspaper reported that the US government paid El Salvador $5 million to incarcerate 200 Venezuelan deportees. Among them was Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was in the US illegally but had not been charged with a crime. He was later sent back to the US.

US media have since reported that the government is seeking to transfer him to Eswatini, citing an email from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement official.

For Ghana, Foreign Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa dismissed similar allegations against his government, saying the country’s decision was “purely on humanitarian principle and Pan-African solidarity.”

“As a nation that upholds the dignity and rights of all people, particularly those of African descent, Ghana’s action was guided by our moral responsibility, legal obligation and distinguished pan-African track record,” Ablakwa said at a Sept. 15 press conference.

Opposition legislators in Ghana have called for the suspension of the agreement with the US, arguing it should have been approved by parliament. Ablakwa countered that it was only a memorandum of understanding and did not require ratification.

‘This exchange doesn’t look good’

Analysts remain skeptical about whether these migration agreements will improve long-term relations between Washington and African capitals.

Minde said that while some governments hope to gain favor with the US, critics instead see the migration deals as reflecting an unequal relationship, especially when compared with powers such as China and India, which are viewed as engaging Africa through trade and investment without such conditions.

He also pointed to potential security risks, arguing that accepting deportees with criminal backgrounds could increase instability.

“This exchange doesn’t look good – that these people are being dumped in African countries,” he said. “To me, in terms of whether it is shaping relations, it is shaping them in a negative way.”