Ndiho Media,LLC.

By Ndiho Media
Rwanda has received the first group of seven migrants deported from the United States—part of a controversial agreement that could see up to 250 people resettled in Kigali. The Rwandan government confirmed the mid-August arrival but withheld nationalities. Four deportees will remain in Rwanda, while three opted to return to their home countries.
Rights groups warn that deporting people to “third countries” where they have no ties could breach international law, especially if those countries lack strong human rights protections.
Gatebuke’s Warning: “Commodifying Human Beings”

Claude Gatebuke, a survivor of the 1994 Rwandan genocide and executive director of the African Great Lakes Action Network, told Ndiho Media that Rwanda’s role in such agreements fits a troubling pattern.
“Rwanda has been used as a partner in deals where unwanted migrants or asylum seekers are sent not back to their home countries, but to Rwanda,” he said. Gatebuke called the practice “legalized human trafficking,” arguing that it commodifies people while lining the pockets of Rwanda’s ruling elite.
He pointed to past deals with Israel and the UK that he says left deportees vulnerable to extortion and abuse. “It’s less about humanitarianism and more about money and political protection,” he added.
Szlavik’s Defense: “Not a New Precedent”
Joseph Szlavik, Partner at Scribe Strategies & Advisors and a participant in negotiations, rejects Gatebuke’s characterization.
“This isn’t the first time the United States has deported people to a third host country,” Szlavik told Ndiho Media. “There are preexisting treaties and policies—like ‘Safe Third Nation’ agreements with Canada and Mexico. President Trump is not setting a new precedent here.”
Szlavik stressed that the deportees are not ordinary migrants but “hardened criminals—people convicted of murder, rape, and other serious crimes.” He argues the deal is both lawful and diplomatic: “It demonstrates Africa rising as an international partner and taking part in solution-oriented approaches beyond aid.”
Monda’s Rebuttal: “A Dumping Ground for America’s Rejects”
David O. Monda, a journalist and professor at CUNY–Guttman Community College, disagrees sharply.

“All three countries—Rwanda, South Sudan, and Eswatini—are small, landlocked, and poor, with unstable political systems and human rights concerns,” Monda said. “It’s an elephant-and-ant situation where the U.S. holds all the leverage.”
Monda warned that deporting people with no ties to Africa risks turning the continent into “a dumping ground for America’s rejects.” He pointed out that larger African states such as Kenya and Nigeria have rejected similar proposals, suggesting that the burden falls on nations least able to push back.
The Legal Gray Zone
International law permits transfers to third countries only if the destination is considered safe and individuals can contest their removal. In 2023, the UK’s Supreme Court blocked the UK’s Rwanda plan due to concerns about safety. And here in the U.S., a district court temporarily halted an Africa-bound deportation flight in May, before the Supreme Court allowed it to proceed without ruling whether South Sudan was “safe.”
What This Means for Rwanda—and Africa
Supporters argue that Rwanda is seizing an opportunity to raise its diplomatic profile. Critics say the deal reinforces damaging stereotypes of Africa as a convenient solution for Western problems.
Gatebuke’s bottom line: “Development money does not erase repression. What Africa needs is justice and accountability—not to be treated as a convenient destination for those the West doesn’t want.”
Szlavik sees pragmatic diplomacy. Monda sees exploitation. Rwanda’s role in this debate is likely to shape not only its image, but also Africa’s place in the broader conversation on migration, sovereignty, and human rights.