Bola A. Akinterinwa
With the breaking news that Ghana has now joined Rwanda, Sudan, and Eswatini in accepting the unwanted criminals, prisoners, refugees in the United States, there is no longer disputing the importance of, and priority being given to, bilateralism to the detriment of multilateralism in the conduct and management of international questions. In the beginning, the conduct of inter-state relations was largely characterised by bilateral approach. Even though international agreements are currently and generally negotiated multilaterally, bilateralism is still resorted to at the level of the implementation processes and when issues appear more critical. Bilateralism and multilateralism are two different systems of cooperation.
True, bilateralism is more about diplomatic interactions, economic and cultural cooperation, as well as scientific, and military agreements between any two countries. Bilateralism enables direct contact and easy negotiations. When three countries are involved, we talk about trilateralism. When it involves more than three but not up to universal scale, we talk about plurilateralism. Plurilateralism also refers to diplomacy at a regional level, such as in the case of the African Union of 55 countries, ECOWAS of 15 or now 12 countries, Organisation of American States of 35 countries, European Union of 27 countries, NATO of 32 countries, Maghreb Union of 6 countries, etc.
When the cooperation and agreements are at the universal level as it is the case with the United Nations and its agencies, multilateralism refers. It exists more at the level of international organisations and deals with more global and complex questions like international security, climate change, and international development. Unlike bilateralism that deal with issues that are easily addressed and solved, multilateral questions are more difficult to solve because of conflicting national interests. African countries prefer multilateralism to bilateralism when it comes to development issues but the more advance countries prefer bilateral to multilateral approach. It is this bilateral method that Donald Trump has been under-scoring in exporting unwanted criminals in the US to Africa.
Africa’s Acceptance of Unwanted Deportees
When discussing deportations from the United States, it is useful to differentiate between the removal by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for various human rights violations, on the one hand, and removal of jail-term serving people in the United States to African countries, which is done on the basis of bilateral agreements, on the other hand. For example, on March 16, 2020 a 51-year old citizen of Rwanda, Beatrice Munyenyezi, was removed from the United States to Rwanda on the order of a US immigration judge.
As noted by the ICE and the ERO (Enforcement and Removal Operations), ‘Beatrice Munyenyezi was sentenced to ten years in federal prison for procuring her naturalisation based on false statements to immigration officers about her role in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. Munyenyezi participated, aided, and abetted in the persecution and murder of Tutsi people. Her conviction was the first in the United States for concealing one’s personal participation in the Rwandan Genocide.’
This type of removal is quite different from the removal of other criminals from the United States to countries of which the criminals are citizens. In other words, Munyenyezi is a Rwandan. She entered the United States on March 10, 1998. She secured her lawful permanent status on January19, 2001 and became a naturalised US citizen on July 18, 2003. In 2010, the Homeland Security Investigations’ Boston field office arrested her after more than six years of investigating Munyenyezi for concealing her past to wrongly obtain US citizenship, obscuring her direct participation in the Rwandan Genocide – an atrocity of immense scale which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children.’
We have no qualms with the removal of Munyenyezi. Any political leader that carries his or her baggage of political dishonesty abroad or his or her mania of destroying Africa softly with genocidal blood should not be allowed in any foreign country of decent and civilised people. However, with the removal of convicted criminals currently serving jail terms and are not wanted on American soil to the extent that they have to be deported to Rwanda, we cannot but have more than qualms.
First, there is no reason why Africa should be made the dumping ground for convicted, serving criminals in Europe or America. Secondly, African leaders cannot under the pretext of electoral mandate begin to populate Africa with foreign criminals. It is, by so doing, increasing the number of criminals on the continent. It is because convicted and incarcerated people are not deemed fit to live with innocent and non-belligerent society that they are kept in prisons. Prisons in Europe and America are better than those in Africa. Is it not an act of wickedness to deny criminals a better environment?
On August 5, 2025 the Rwandan government announced that it had agreed to admit about 250 migrants who unwanted in the United States (BBC: https:///www.bbc.com). As noted by the Al-Jazeera, no child sex offenders would be allowed among the deportation flights and the country will only accept deported individuals with no criminals. This point is thought-provoking because Rwanda also has many records of human rights violations. Donald Trump is guilty of sending people to third countries in violation of human rights as the people being deported do not have personal connections with Rwanda.
It is unimaginable to believe that Rwanda can go beyond the limitations of President Donald Trump in ensuring national security in Rwanda with the presence of more hardened deportees remaining in the country. If the hardened criminals are making life difficult to Donald Trump, what makes the Rwandan president more competent to handle the problem of insecurity? Is it his long stay in power?
In the words of Yolande Makolo, Rwandan government spokesperson, ‘under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement. Those approved will be provided with workforce training, health care, accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economy in the world over the last decade.’ What is the future of Rwanda’s fastest-growing economy when the country is consciously increasing its number of criminals and polluting the local population with different categories of refugees? Additionally, one unanswered question here is why is Africa, in general, and Rwanda, in particular, always chosen as the destination of the deportees?
South Sudan is the first African country in 2025 to accept the dumping of two Cubans, two citizens of Myanmar, two Mexicans, one Vietnamese, one Laotian, and one South Sudanese who are unwanted on the US soil for having been convicted for crimes of rape, homicide, armed robbery, etc. The US government considered them as ‘true national security threats’ to the United States. Two issues are raised by this consideration.
First is the issue of selective discrimination against Africa. Put interrogatively, are there no white Americans that have been convicted for rape, or homicide, or for armed robbery? If there are, how do they constitute less of national security interests to the people of America? Why are they not eligible for possible deportation? One possible hypothesis is the issue over which there has always been much silence, which is President Donald Trump’s policy intention to make the modern-day United States a country of only white Americans that are Americans by ius sanguinis and descent.
This observation is made clear by deductive analogy: if there are Americans that have committed the same crimes like the eight criminals deported to South Sudan, and we posit here that there are many of them without any whiff of doubt, why are the American criminals not deported somewhere or even to Africa in order to have a United States that will be completely free from such criminals, especially if the real truth and concern of Donald Trump is security threats? Is the United States of Donald Trump not trying to infiltrate Africa with hardened criminals in order to eventually destabilise the continent? It is a truism that Donald Trump has a policy of ‘America First’ and ‘Make America Great Again.’ But why should making America great again be by exporting the United States of American-made criminals and relocating them to Africa? Why not send them to the EU countries where there are better prison facilities? Perhaps the more motherly question is what has tantalised the African leaders to have accepted international criminals?
Secondly, the deportees can be truly considered as threats because the United States government does not appear to have the capacity to keep the deportees under its effective control. If the capacity is there, why not keep them on US soil and give them the maximum punishment that they may lawfully deserve? The point we are simply making is that Donald Trump has an agenda of America of only white Americans by blood descent. American citizens, in the strategic calculations of Donald Trump, do not include naturalised Latin Americans and Africans. This is one reason that explains why they are seen as threats to US national security interests. This is also why he underscores the diplomacy of bilateralism in handling the matter. The empirical cases hereinafter explicated lend much credence to our postulation.
Africa and Multilateralism versus Bilateralism:
Africa’s policy attitude in international relations favours multilateralism to the detriment of bilateralism, especially when it concerns general international questions and grant of development aid. The developed countries prefer bilateralism for obvious reasons. They generally have more bargaining power. In most cases, the relationship is vertical or unequal. Imagine discussing the deportation of foreign criminals to an African country in a multilateral setting. The outcome cannot augur well because of the likely controversies it will generate in the potential host countries. This partly explains why Donald Trump might have adopted bilateral approach to the agreements on the deportation of ‘American’ criminals to Africa.
Unlike the cases of South Sudan, Rwanda, and Eswatini which involved more of non-African criminals, the deportations to Ghana appear to be more logically acceptable. This means that there currently permissible and impermissible deportations. It is permissible if the deportation is about one’s nationals and impermissible if it concerns non-nationals. Let us at this juncture provide an overview of the issues involved in previous cases in order to underline some neglected intrinsic future problems for Africa.
The first is the fact that some of the home countries of the deportees have vehemently refused to accept their own citizens. If states refuse to accept their own citizens, why should African countries seek to be holier than their home countries? If the United States and the home countries of the deportees do not also want them, what should Donald Trump do in this case?
Secondly and more disturbingly, there is no disputing the fact that the criminals have the human right to live even under their incarceration. They have the right to existence. As such, what should be done to reconcile an offence and enjoyment of human right in this case? Hypothetically, not probably knowing what to do appears to have prompted Donald Trump’s kangaroo approach and his decision to disregard the judgment of the US Supreme Court which placed an injunction on deportation of migrants.
Additionally, “Unquestionably in Violation, Judge says US Government didn’t follow court order on deportation,” was the title of the story written by Lindsay Whitehurst, Michael Casey, Rebecca Santana, and Tim Sullivan for the Associated Press. As explained in the story by Judge Brian E. Murphy in Boston, the eight deportees did not have ‘meaningful opportunity’ to object to being sent to South Sudan.” If there is no room for fair hearing and justice at the level of the United States, why should anyone expect any better treatment in Africa? Can it not be argued, and rightly too, that the choice of countries for the deportees are countries where there are serious violations of human rights?
Whatever is the case, the group of deportees was bundled into the aircraft just few ‘hours after getting notice’ and they had no time to prepare not to talk of consulting with their lawyers. Why is the United States preaching the protection of human rights while it is also leading the world in its breach? Additionally, one unanswered question here is why is Africa always chosen as the destination of the deportees? Why is the deportation negotiation on the basis of secrecy? More importantly, bilateralism has two meanings in the context of Africa. The first is the context of involvement of two sovereign States. The second is the context of the whole of African continent negotiating with only one single sovereign state.
In the context of the second example, Africa versus Japan or France, or China, or Russia, etc. why is the issue of illegal or criminal migrants not tabled multilaterally for possible collective discussion and enduring solution? At the level of South Sudan, eight people, one of whom is a citizen of South Sudan, were deported to South Sudan. At the level of Eswatini, the first group of deportees comprised non-Africans. The next round of deportation to Eswatini includes Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadorian citizen deported by the Trump administration in El Salvador on April 17, 2025. Besides, there are reports that the people deported to Eswatini are being imprisoned illegally (The Guardian, London).
There is also another report that three deportees by the US are being held in African prison despite completing their sentences (Public Broadcasting Service, PBS News, based in Arlington, Virginia). In fact, the Eswatini government has been taken to court by a group of NGOs arguing that the five people deported to the country was unconstitutional and that it also violated the human rights of the imprisoned people, especially that the deportation deal was unnecessarily kept secret by Government and the deportees were incarcerated in a prison which already has 190% over capacity (The Guardian, London, Friday, 22 August, 2025).
While the Southern African Litigation Centre (SALC) says ‘this litigation signals to the continent and the world that African nations cannot serve as dumping grounds for unresolved issues,’ Mr Sifisco Khumalo, Eswatini’s attorney General says the litigation is ‘a frivolous legal application’ arguing reportedly that ‘the US had previously deported 252 Venezuelans to El Salvador, where they spent more than four months in a notorious prison before being returned to Venezuela. Eight men were sent to South Sudan after spending weeks in a shipping container in Djibouti…’
There cannot but be much happiness for Donald Trump hearing about how African people now reason about deportees in Eswatini and how Ghana has jumped into accepting deportees on behalf of a country like Nigeria. Nigeria is on record to have refused to accept Venezuelan deportees. A good policy stand indeed! Ghana’s acceptance of deportees from the United States under a bilateral agreement cannot be faulted since the deportees are said to be ECOWAS Community Citizens. However, the agreement cannot but have serious security implications for the ECOWAS, in general, and for Nigeria, in particular. As noted earlier, the deportees to Ghana are ECOWAS citizens, including Nigerians and a Gambian, which gives a new dimension to the deportations so far. Seven US-unwanted people were deported to Rwanda in August 2025, Eswatini received five, while South Sudan received eight deportees. Ghana has reportedly received fourteen people, the highest number. How many of them are still on the queue of deportees? No one can tell for now.
The implication of this is that the number of deportees is on the increase. The number of host countries is also on the increase. As Eswatini has already been challenged by a group of NGOs, what happens if other NGOs in Africa also begin legal tussles and protests? Secondly, is the fact that unwanted people in the United States will still be coming to Ghana apart from those that have arrived in Ghana, not suggest dishonesty on the part of African leaders? Does it not raise questions on the future of Africa as a people, as a government, as an organisation, and as a futureless society? Is political governance in Africa ever driven by any seriousness of purpose?
Thirdly, there is also the implication of Ghana’s acceptance of unwanted deportees from the United States. It is the fraud inherent in the deportation agreement. As told by Thomas Naadi ‘Ghana had already facilitated the return of the Nigerians to their country by bus while the Gambian was still being assisted to return home.’ When this report is examined in the context of foreign policy pronouncement of Nigeria’s Foreign Minister, Ambassador Yusuf Maitama Tuggar, who reportedly said that Nigeria has enough problems and is therefore not prepared to accept deportees from the United States, how do we explain the Nigerian deportees from the United States that arrived in Ghana and that are being returned to Nigeria by bus? Is Nigeria aware of Ghana’s negotiations with the United States? In other words, what is the situation with those transported by bus to Nigeria? What is the status of the US allegations against the Nigerians involved? President Mahama admitted that Ghana-US relations is fraught with difficulties of US tariffs on Ghanaian goods and visa restrictions on Ghanaians.
With this situational reality, how do we explain Ghana’s readiness to accept US-unwanted prisoners, criminals? In the words of President John Mahama of Ghana, ‘we were approached by the US to accept third-party nationals who were being removed from the US. And we agreed with them that West African nationals were acceptable… All our fellow West African nationals don’t need visas to come to our country’ (Thomas Naadi, “Ghana agrees to accept West Africans deported from US”, bbc.com, Thursday, 11 September, 2025). While the logic of Ghanaian acceptance of deportees is acceptable that of Eswatini is a major setback because Africa cannot have a brighter, self-reliant future, self-integrity, and mental decolonisation. Eswatini Attorney-General, Mr Sifisco Khumalo, believes that deportees were first held in containers in a ship elsewhere or that the United States first kept 252 Venezuelans in a notorious prison before their final resettlement is enough and good reason for Eswatini to also keep their own five deportees in an overcrowded prison. He made the matter worse by further arguing that Rwanda and Uganda have also agreed to accept more US deportees. This is most unfortunate. The idea of even accepting non-African criminal deportees is a priori a reflection of policy myopia. The arguments of the Eswatini attorney general is most unbefitting of an African attorney-general, by thinking that because the United States and others have further enslaved the deportees, nothing could be wrong in also continuing to do the same in Eswatini.
Leave a comment