International Law and Refund of Deportation Bills: The Case of Nigeria and Ghana versus South Africa

Bola A. Akinterinwa

International law and reimbursement of deportation bills is quite interesting a topic in intra-African relations for various reasons. First, there is no general rule regulating the need to reimburse countries that deport or repatriate unwanted people. Secondly, the politics of refund of deportation bills is not only creating a diplomatic row between and among Nigeria, South Africa and Ghana, but is also raising several questions about the future of continental unity and integration. Thirdly, in the absence of a regulating rule of law, it is either the deporting state accepts to fund the deportation as a result of its own policy of unwanted immigrants, or the deportee is made to pay if the domestic law allows, or the airline that is carrying the deportee in violation of immigration law. The problems in this case are many.

 First, deportees do not want to leave the deporting state. They are coerced to leave against their will. When they are coerced to leave, it is most often when they are ill-prepared. Little or no time is given to them to prepare and leave in decency. This is why they are always rushed out and are put in the next available airline or shipping vessel. South African government has deported many unwanted Africans and has exceeded its deportation budget. The insolvency created as a result of the deportation has prompted the South African government to demand for reimbursement from some Governments, including those of Nigeria and Ghana. Both countries have refused.

Secondly, in most cases, deportees are always insolvent at the time they are arrested and prosecuted, or arrested and immediately deported. In this time of forced evacuation, there is nothing the deportee could do other than accepting to be a liability to the deporting state. This means there is nothing the deporting state can do than either to pay for the deportation or keep the unwanted person in detention. This situation is true of the airline carrying the deportee contrarily to the immigration laws of the deporting state. An airline can be sanctioned by way of refusal of next landing right but this can also warrant the application of the rule of reciprocity. In this regard, how do we deal with the emerging diplomatic row between South Africa, on the one hand, and Nigeria and Ghana, on the other hand?

International Law and Deportations 

There are different forms of deportations in international law and relations. They include refoulement, repatriation, and expulsion. The concepts of refoulement and repatriation are different in meaning but can at times be synonymous in application. Normally, refoulement is by definition the opposite of repatriation. Repatriation is the return of a person to his or her home country, generally on the basis of consent. Refoulement is the illegal forced return of a refugee or asylum seeker to a place where his or her life has the potential to be seriously threatened. Repatriation occurs at the end of conflicts or when environmental conditionings of life are not inclement back home. Repatriation is legitimate it is free and done by choice. Repatriation is meant to be voluntary and safe while refoulement is forced and unsafe. But both concepts can be synonymous when people are compelled to repatriate against their will to a dangerous territory where their life may be threatened. In this type of situation, repatriation becomes a refoulement.

The two concepts should also not be confused with the notion of expulsion which is the formal legal action by a host government forcing a non-citizen to leave its territory for reasons ranging from immigration infractions to security law violations. Again, repatriation may not be synonymous with deportation. Repatriation is the return of a person to his home country voluntarily on either humanitarian, legal or administrative reasons. When people are stranded or are prisoners of war or migrant workers and they found themselves in irregular situations, they may be repatriated. Travelers considered to have the potential of becoming a landed immigrant, or landed tourist  can be repatriated. On the contrary, deportation is the act of forced removal of a foreign national by a government, especially as a result of violation of immigration laws or lack of legal status. In general, it is used in cases of non-citizens living illegally or found to have committed certain offences. In the context of Nigerians and Ghanaians in South Africa, it is more of deportation or expulsion.

Without whiff of doubt, an act of deportation, repatriation, or refoulement can lead to a demand for reimbursement of deportation bills by a deporting state.  What is made clear under international law is that such a demand can only be legitimate if there is a valid existing treaty, bilateral accord, or a financial framework providing for such reimbursement. As regards refoulement, it is a French word that means an act of extraditing, or deporting to a country or place where there is the risk of torture, inhuman treatment, or persecution. Article 33(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention specifically provides for the principle of Non- refoulement, that is, it bans the act of refoulement. Refugees are not to be returned to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened because of their race, political opinion, nationality, religion or membership of a given stratum of society. 

Refoulement can be direct, in which case a refugee is returned to the very country where they face danger; or indirect, in which case a person is sent to a third country that may return such a person to a country to face persecution or serious harm. What is noteworthy here is that the principle of non-refoulement, especially in the context of an asylum seeker, who is trying to escape persecution, cannot be deported back to the state where he is likely to be tortured, imprisoned, or persecuted. The principle of non-refoulement has attained the status of a customary international law. It has become a fundamental norm or peremptory norm that cannot be derogated.

Consequently, in the context of reimbursement of deportation bills, what really is the status of Nigerians and Ghanaians deported by the South African government? Are they hardened criminals? Are they refugees or asylees? Is there truly any record of Nigerians and Ghanaians posing a serious threat to the security of South Africa? These questions are necessary because the only exception to the rule of non-refoulement is when an asylum seeker or people constitute(s) a serious danger to the security of their host state. In fact, Article 31 of the 1951 Convention on refugees unlawfully residing in the country of refuge are still supposed to be protected. The Article says “the Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened…’ Additionally, Article 32 prohibits expulsion: the “Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.” 

More importantly, Article 33 on prohibition of expulsion or return (refoulement), stipulates that ‘no Contracting State shall expel or return (refouler) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where  his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Rather than expulsion, Contracting States are required under Article 34 to facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of refugees.

In the same vein, the Convention Against Torture (CAT), adopted on 10 December, 1984 and which entered into force on 26 June, 1987, similarly prohibits’ Contracting States from expelling, returning or extraditing any person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing they would be in danger of being tortured. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which was adopted in 1966 and entered into force on 23 March, 1976, similarly provides in its Article 13 that ‘an alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority.’

The essence of the foregoing references is to suggest that, grosso modo, acts of deportation, repatriation, expulsion, refoulement, etc. are regulated and are allowed only in the context of serious dangers to national security. Secondly, there is no reason to suggest that there are no Nigerians, Malawians, Ghanaians, etc. that have entered South Africa for fear of persecution in their home countries. In other words, are there no Nigerian or Ghanaian or Zimbabwean asylum seekers among the victims of South Africa’s xenophobic attacks? If there are, has South Africa not violated international law? Is South Africa’s xenophobic attacks consistent with the quest for United States of Africa? Why should there be reimbursements for South Africa’s disregard for international law?

Nigeria and Ghana versus South Africa

Deportation is an important foreign policy tool in the protection of national sovereignty. All sovereign nations use it as a right to send out of their territories unwanted foreigners. What is noteworthy about it as of today is that it is more frequently used by the big powers, especially by the United States of Donald Trump. But, more disturbingly, Africa has been the choice for the third-country deportees, that is, undocumented migrants who are not being returned directly to their home countries. 

Explained differently, Africa has become the deportation network centre for unwanted criminals, undocumented migrants, and convicted persons in the United States. Many African countries like Rwanda, Uganda, Eswatini, South Sudan, Ghana, Cameroon, and the Central African Republic, have received the third-country deportees in exchange for money. The United States does not want convicted criminals on US territory and is asking African leaders to accept them with U.S. financial support. The latest in the expansion of the deportation network is Liberia, in West Africa.

As noted by Ayodeji Adegboyega in his ‘Trump expands US deportation network in Africa as Liberia agrees to take 1,200 people,’(businessinsider.com; 19 August, 2026), Liberia has agreed to take 1,200 people deported from the United States over the next 12 months. The United States is to provide support for Liberia for accepting to host the 1,200 persons. The first group of 20 arrived in Liberia on Friday, 21st August, 2026. The deportees can seek asylum in Liberia or choose to leave after arrival.

This type of deportation not only raises the daftness, so to say, of many African leaders. Put interrogatively, why will people considered unfit to stay or live on the soil of the United States be acceptable to live in Africa, especially when they are not citizens, when they are third-country deportees? Something appears to be fundamentally wrong with African mentality. This wrongness is also not far-fetched at the level of intra-African politics. Let us look at one dimension of funding of deportations in Africa.

The dispute between Nigeria and Ghana, on the one hand, and South Africa, on the other, is about payment of deportation of Ghanaians and Nigerians from South Africa to Ghana and Nigeria respectively. Repatriation and deportation of foreign nationals is considered too financially burdensome for the Government of South Africa to carry alone. Consequently, the Government adopted a policy of making countries of origin pay part of the costs of deportation of their citizens. In this regard, South Africa is asking for $18.5 million (R292 million) from Nigeria, Malawi, and Ethiopia as reimbursement for the costs of deporting and repatriating more than 82,000 of their undocumented citizens. This amount largely exceeds Pretoria’s initial $3.8 million budget. As explained by the South African Department of Home Affairs, expenses for transport, temporary centers like Musina, and staff overtime were unforeseen and unavoidable. Government does not want South African taxpayers to be solely responsible for the deportation of foreign nationals

The $18.5 million bills include the costs of transportation, accommodation, security, and administrative expenses. Besides, the South African government argues that countries that can organize voluntary repatriation flights should also be able to share responsibility for deportation costs. As further explained by the South African government, this policy is still under discussion and is yet to become official government policy.

However, both Ghana and Nigeria have been reacting to the policy proposal as if the policy is already in force. Ghana objected to South Africa’s request for payment for various reasons. Ghana raised questions about the number of its citizens involved and the circumstances surrounding anti-migrant incidents. Besides, Ghana raised concerns about the xenophobic attacks against African nationals in South Africa at the level of the African Union. And perhaps more significantly, Ghana has also argued that it repatriated all its citizens from South Africa by itself using chartered flights organized by its government and diplomatic missions. Therefore, there is no good basis for any payment of deportation bills by Ghana. And true enough, as we noted above, international law does not require any state of nationality to reimburse another state for deportation expenses unless there are bilateral agreements or readmission agreements, or regional agreements to that effect. Some States negotiate specific commitments on deportation. The question therefore is: do both countries have any agreement on the basis of which there can be negotiation?

In the context of Nigeria, Nigeria has neither admitted nor refused payment but has simply claimed not to have received any official request from the Government of South Africa. However, the issues of mistreatment of Nigerian nationals during the deportation operations and during the anti-immigration protests were raised. Nigeria drew attention to the need for due process, humane treatment and respect for Nigerian citizens. Nigeria not only accused the South African government of complicity in the maltreatment of Nigerian nationals, especially in light of South African policemen standing aloof during mistreatment of Nigerians, but is also asking for compensation which South Africa has refused to recognize. 

As noted by former Southeast spokesman to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT) and Chairman of the Forum of Former Members of the Enugu State House of Assembly, Denge Josef Onoh, in a statement made in Dar es Salaam, Nigeria would not pay ‘a single cent… As an independent sovereign nation, and that Nigeria firmly rejects this illegal levy, which directly violates international law, the principles of continental solidarity, and the fundamental rights of African citizens.’ Rather than pay, he wants South Africa to be held responsible for ‘Xenophobic Property Indemnification’ as Nigeria would officially return Pretoria’s invoice without any due consideration.

In this regard, how do we interpret Nigeria would officially return Pretoria’s invoice without consideration? This question is quite relevant at this juncture because Nigeria claims not to have received any request for reimbursement? Besides, if South Africa has not adopted payment of deportation bills as an official policy, why should South Africa send a deportation invoice to Nigeria? If South Africa did not send an invoice, why then talk about returning an invoice that was never sent? Can we not also admit that Nigeria has truly not received any request from South Africa? Whatever is the case, how does South Africa go about this type of order and counter-order? There is nothing to suggest that there is an existing agreement on deportation bills. To what extent can we therefore talk about violations of international law? 

And true enough, who really is respecting international law as of today? U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has said that the ‘UN needs to act. Iran violated international law by blocking Hormuz.’ His Iranian counterpart has responded by asking thus: ‘international law? Where was that when the U.S. hit a school, blocked Cuba, and grabbed Venezuela’s President? Put differently, to what extent can Nigeria and Ghana, on the one hand, and South Africa, on the other hand, go regarding payment of deportation bills? Where is the place of continental unity and solidarity? Is the quest for continental integration necessary with the increasing emphasis on nationalism and protectionism? 

International Law and Refund of Deportation Bills necessarily raise not simply the future of international law but also that of the United States of Africa. First, at the level of international law, Jeremy Bentham formulated the word ‘international ‘to replace ‘Law of Nations,’ which he considered ambiguous. For him, ‘international’ means ‘between nations.’ But the concept of ‘international’ has moved beyond the postulation of the 1780 coinage of Jeremy Bentham. International can refer to what is bilateral, plurilateral, and multilateral. Consequently, international law, which, grosso modo, is considered to have a universal character, is de facto being unconsciously redefined to imply restricted scope. There is international law à la United States, and international law that is no longer driven by rules, but by nationalism, whims, and caprices. Will the emerging new world order be defined by rules of law? At the level of Africa, it was because of the quest for continental integration and political unity that Africa was divided into five regions by the 1991 Abuja Treaty Establishing the African Economic Union. Today, Africa is increasingly treading the path of disintegration. Members of the Alliance of Sahel States have withdrawn from the ECOWAS. Guinea Conakry has indicated its withdrawal from the ECOWAS monetary union with effect from 2027. Nigeria and Ghana are currently in a diplomatico-deportation bill imbroglio with South Africa. Quo Vadis Africa? When will Africa be African? When will Africa stop being the dumping ground for unwanted criminals in Europe and America?