Five people whom the United States sought to deport to Liberia this week were instead transported to Equatorial Guinea after refusing to leave the aircraft when it arrived in Monrovia, according to sources familiar with the incident cited by Reuters.
The episode highlights the practical and legal complexities emerging from Washington’s expanding use of so-called third-country deportation arrangements with African governments, while also placing renewed attention on the responsibilities of African states that agree to receive people who have no prior connection to their territories.
The five migrants — three Cuban men, a Brazilian man and a Cameroonian woman — were among a group transported from the United States to Liberia on Thursday. Reuters reported that 15 people disembarked in Monrovia, while the five others remained on the aircraft after resisting the transfer. Sources told Reuters that they were subsequently informed that they would be returned to the United States, but the aircraft instead travelled to Malabo, the capital of Equatorial Guinea, where the five were made to leave the plane.
The account could not immediately be independently verified by The Southern African Times. Liberia’s information ministry did not respond to Reuters’ request for comment, while the governments of Liberia and Equatorial Guinea have not publicly provided a detailed account of the incident.
The transfer took place only days after Liberia formally announced an arrangement under which it would receive as many as 1,200 people deported from the United States over the next year. The first group was expected to comprise 20 people, with Liberian officials saying those transferred could include nationals of African countries as well as countries in the Caribbean and the Americas. Liberia has also said that those arriving under the arrangement may seek asylum in the country or leave if they choose.
The agreement is part of a broader US policy under President Donald Trump of transferring some people to countries other than their countries of citizenship when direct removal is restricted by legal or humanitarian considerations. Washington describes the policy as an enforcement mechanism intended to remove people who do not have a legal right to remain in the United States.
In many cases, however, the people affected are subject to legal protections preventing their direct return to countries where US immigration judges have determined that they could face torture or other serious harm. Human rights organisations have consequently questioned whether transfers to third countries can ultimately result in indirect returns to countries from which individuals are legally protected.
The distinction is important for African governments. These arrangements are not simply questions of migration enforcement; they involve questions of sovereignty, diplomatic responsibility, detention standards and the protection of people transferred into African jurisdictions.
Equatorial Guinea has already become part of this emerging system. According to monitoring by the Third Country Deportation Watch, the United States had transferred 53 people to Equatorial Guinea in several operations between November 2025 and July 2026. The organisation says many of those individuals had previously received forms of humanitarian protection from removal in the United States.
The latest five arrivals would bring the number of people being held in Equatorial Guinea in connection with the US deportation programme to about 40, according to sources cited by Reuters, although the precise composition and legal status of those detained could not be independently established.
The migrants are reportedly being held at a former hotel in Malabo. Human rights organisations have raised concerns about the conditions there, including access to medical treatment, legal assistance and the psychological wellbeing of detainees. The Washington Post previously reported that the facility was being used to hold people transferred from the United States under an arrangement involving Equatorial Guinea.
The US Department of Homeland Security has defended the policy, saying those removed had been found by US authorities to have no legal right to remain in the country and had been transferred to a “safe third country”. The US State Department has similarly maintained that the administration remains committed to immigration enforcement and border security.
The dispute, therefore, is not simply about whether the United States has the authority to remove people who have exhausted their legal avenues. It also concerns what happens after removal, particularly where the receiving country is neither the individual’s country of nationality nor a place with which they have an established social or legal connection.
For African countries, the issue presents a more complicated picture than the conventional framing of migration as a movement from Africa towards Europe or North America. African states are increasingly becoming destinations, transit points and custodians within international migration systems shaped by decisions made well beyond the continent. Liberia’s participation also reflects the agency of an African government making its own diplomatic and policy choices, even as questions remain about the long-term implications of those choices.
Liberia has described its arrangement in humanitarian terms and pointed to the country’s historical experience of receiving people displaced by conflict. The government has also said those transferred can seek protection in Liberia. At the same time, the scale of the proposed arrangement — up to 1,200 people — means that questions concerning accommodation, legal status, integration, onward movement and access to due process will become increasingly significant as the programme develops.
The wider policy is already being scrutinised. A recent report cited by the Guardian said the Trump administration had established third-country deportation arrangements with numerous governments, including several in Africa. The report also highlighted concerns from immigration lawyers and rights organisations about the possibility that people transferred to third countries could eventually be returned to countries from which they had received protection.
The United States disputes the characterisation that such arrangements circumvent immigration law, maintaining that the removals are lawful. The administration’s position is that a person whose right to remain in the United States has been rejected can be removed, including to a country prepared to receive them where direct removal to their country of origin is not possible.
