From Ouagadougou to Kampala: The Rising Tide of Third-Country Deportation Deals
An IMGlobalWealth.com News Report
When Burkina Faso declared it would refuse U.S. requests to accept deportees, it made headlines. But what’s unfolding is not a one-off dispute — it is part of a broader reconfiguration in migration diplomacy, with states across Africa, Europe and beyond being asked to shoulder the burden of deportations.
Burkina Faso’s Foreign Minister, Karamoko Jean-Marie Traoré, dismissed the U.S. proposal as “indecent,” declaring his country “a place of dignity, not a place of expulsion.” Shortly afterwards, the U.S. Embassy in Ouagadougou suspended most visa services and redirected applicants to the embassy in Lomé, Togo.
“Burkina Faso’s refusal is part of a broader contest over sovereignty, burden-sharing and the ethics of offloading migration enforcement (…) refusing to become dumping grounds for others’ migration policies”
But Burkina Faso is not the only (or even the first) country facing such pressure. In Africa:
- Eswatini has already received multiple groups of deportees under U.S. agreements. The most recent flight delivered 10 individuals, joining previous transfers under a deal reportedly secured with a $5.1 million incentive.
- Rwanda accepted the first batch of 7 vetted migrants earlier this year under a broader plan to accept up to 250 U.S. deportees.
- Ghana has also participated: 11 West African nationals were transferred from the U.S., though legal challenges and murky repatriation paths remain, and concerns over abuse persist.
Into this shifting landscape enters Uganda. According to an IMGW News report, Kampala has agreed to take deportees under strict conditions — only individuals without criminal records, excluding unaccompanied minors, and with preference for African nationals. Formalisation of the scheme is pending, but Uganda insists it remains cautious, underscoring its existing burden of hosting more than 1.5 million refugees.
This Uganda deal mirrors wider moves in Europe. The European Union is drafting new migration rules that enable “return hubs” in third countries to house rejected asylum seekers pending deportation. Some EU members and Britain are in talks with nations to host such facilities; the UK is reportedly exploring partnerships with several states. Meanwhile, the Netherlands is close to an agreement with Uganda to host a hub for rejected asylum seekers.
There are high-stakes legal and moral flashpoints, too. The case of Kilmar Abrego García, a Salvadoran national whom U.S. officials attempted to deport to Uganda, Ghana and Eswatini — only to be rebuffed — illustrates the limits of these schemes. In some cases, courts have temporarily blocked third-country deportations altogether.
In short, Burkina Faso’s refusal is part of a broader contest over sovereignty, burden-sharing and the ethics of offloading migration enforcement. Some countries acquiesce under pressure or financial inducement. Others accept only under tight conditions. Still others draw a line, refusing to become dumping grounds for others’ migration policies.
