I stopped publishing articles in my widely read Critique Column for some time due to the enormous responsibilities I carry at the moment as the head of an institution that serves thousands of underprivileged beneficiaries. However, as a former immigrant who settled in Europe more than two decades ago, and as someone who has always maintained a deep interest in immigration issues and the welfare of immigrants around the world, I felt compelled to write this piece after carefully reviewing recent reports, including a televised interview with our Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Timothy Kabbah, concerning the government’s decision to begin receiving deportees from the Trump administration on Sierra Leonean soil.
The growing trend of migration control agreements between powerful states and economically vulnerable countries has become one of the most controversial issues in international relations. Among the most debated are deportation and migrant return agreements associated with the immigration policies of the administration of President Trump of United States of America. These arrangements, often framed as bilateral cooperation on migration management and border security, have generated intense global debate regarding sovereignty, human rights, diplomacy, and morality.
Supporters describe such agreements as legitimate instruments of international diplomacy intended to regulate migration, strengthen border management, combat human trafficking, and protect national security interests. Critics, however, argue that many of these arrangements disproportionately burden weaker states, undermine human dignity, and place economic incentives above humanitarian obligations. This has led some observers to characterize them as political bargains made under pressure — metaphorically described as “a pact with the devil.”
In this article, I will briefly discuss what asylum and deportation mean; why many African asylum seekers, particularly Sierra Leoneans, are having their applications rejected or are being deported; how irregular migration and asylum claims have affected the image of Sierra Leone as a nation; the deportation agreement with the Trump administration; its potential benefits and implications for Sierra Leone; the broader repercussions of these developments; and, finally, a concluding assessment of the issue.
What is Asylum?
First and foremost, for the youth who can read and write but may not fully understand this topic, let me explain what asylum and deportation mean. Asylum is a form of legal protection granted by one country to a person who has fled their own country because they fear persecution, violence, or serious harm. It is based on international laws and the United Nations Convention relating to the protection of refugees, which states that no individual should be forced to return to a place where their life, safety, or freedom is at risk. People who seek asylum are usually escaping situations such as war, political oppression, religious persecution, ethnic discrimination, armed conflict, or threats from violent groups and governments.
A person who applies for asylum is known as an asylum seeker. This means the individual has requested protection from another country but is still waiting for the government to decide whether the claim is valid. If the authorities determine that the person genuinely faces danger in their home country, the asylum seeker may be officially recognized as a refugee and granted permission to remain legally in the host country. In many cases, successful asylum applicants are allowed to work, access education and healthcare, and eventually apply for permanent residency or citizenship depending on the laws of the country involved.
The concept of asylum is deeply rooted in international human rights law. After the Second World War, the international community adopted legal protections for people fleeing persecution, especially through the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These international agreements recognize that every human being has the right to seek protection in another country when their own government cannot or will not protect them.
If you are granted asylum, it is prohibited to return to your country of origin without informing the country that granted you asylum. Your asylum will be automatically revoked because your safe visit to your country of origin simply means there are no existential threats against your life.
What about Deportation?
Deportation simply means the willingly or forcefully repatriation of migrants, asylum seekers, or undocumented individuals to their countries of origin or to third-party countries willing to receive them. Many countries across the world maintain repatriation treaties and migration management partnerships. However, most civilized nations limit it to the repatriation or extradition of highly wanted criminals such as drug lords, war or political criminals. Unfortunately, wealthy and attractive nations have now extended this policy to vulnerable asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.
When your asylum application is rejected, you may be given a personal non gratia to leave willingly or be forcefully removed without any prior-notification. I have witnessed immigrants being shackled with chains and handcuffs, loaded on plains without any permission to take their personal effects. Whether you have been law-abiding, religious or honest in life, when a deprivation order is signed against you, you would be tread as an illegal alien who stays illegally on another man`s land. I have witnessed many poor Africans being separated from friend friends, families, colleagues in Europe on deportation order. Some left behind valuables and cash they have been gathering while working underground.
Why are Many African Asylum Seeker Being Rejected or Deported?
Many African asylum seekers are being rejected or deported because governments in destination countries often believe that some applicants do not meet the legal definition of a refugee under international asylum laws. In many cases, immigration authorities argue that the individuals are migrating mainly because of poverty, unemployment, or the search for better economic opportunities rather than fleeing direct persecution, war, or targeted violence. Since asylum systems are designed primarily to protect people escaping persecution or serious danger, applications based mainly on economic hardship are frequently denied.
Another major reason is the growing tightening of immigration policies in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom, and several countries within the European Union. Over the past decade, many governments have adopted stricter border control measures due to increasing migration pressures, political concerns, national security fears, and rising anti-immigration sentiments among some sections of their populations. As a result, asylum systems have become more restrictive, with tougher screening processes, prolonged detention, and faster deportation procedures.
In some cases, African asylum seekers struggle to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. Immigration authorities often require proof that the applicant faces a real and personal risk of persecution if returned home. However, many asylum seekers flee suddenly without documents, police reports, or legal evidence. Some may also come from countries that are not officially classified as war zones, making it more difficult to convince authorities that they face serious threats.
Another factor is the increasing suspicion among immigration authorities that some individuals misuse asylum systems as a pathway for migration. Because of this perception, governments have become more skeptical of applications from countries considered politically stable, even when individuals may still face genuine local threats such as political intimidation, gang violence, religious extremism, or tribal conflict.
How Has Asylum Affected the Image of Sierra Leone As a Country?
I arrived in Europe in 2004. Throughout my stay, I have had the opportunity to conduct personal research and gain a deeper understanding of the trends surrounding asylum and their negative implications for a beautiful but economically struggling country like Sierra Leone. I also had the opportunity to work as an interpreter in courts and asylum camps in Germany, where I witnessed numerous asylum hearings. Some cases sounded legitimate, while others appeared ridiculous and, at times, even unimaginably inconceivable.
During the civil wars in Sierra Leone and Liberia throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, I came to understand how the asylum system in Europe was widely exploited by many West African migrants who had no direct connection to either country. At that time, because of the brutal conflicts in Sierra Leone and Liberia, asylum claims from citizens of those countries were often treated sympathetically by European immigration authorities. As a result, many migrants from neighbouring West African countries, particularly Nigeria, Ghana, Guinea, and The Gambia, falsely claimed to be Sierra Leoneans or Liberians in order to obtain asylum and residency permits in Europe.
In many cases, asylum authorities depended heavily on verification from diplomatic missions accredited to those countries. Unfortunately, the same culture of corruption and “brown envelope” dealings that plagued many African institutions also found its way into some diplomatic processes abroad. Certain officials knowingly certified individuals who were not citizens of Sierra Leone or Liberia, thereby enabling thousands of foreigners across Europe to obtain documents and identities linked to those countries. Even today, there are reportedly many individuals in Europe still carrying Sierra Leonean identities despite having no genuine connection to the country.
It is known fact that those migrants were fleeing poverty and economic hardship rather than direct persecution or war. However, poverty alone is generally not considered a legitimate basis for asylum under international law. Knowing that they risked deportation if their true nationalities were discovered, they arrived in Europe without any authentic identification documents. Under standard asylum procedures, authorities would issue temporary identification papers based solely on the personal information provided by the applicant. This created opportunities for individuals to assume entirely new identities.
As an interpreter working within asylum systems in Germany, I personally encountered numerous cases where individuals from different West African countries adopted Sierra Leonean or Liberian names and backgrounds. I met Nigerians, Guineans, and Ghanaians presenting themselves as Sierra Leoneans with carefully constructed stories designed to pass asylum interviews. I have met a Nigeria called Sahr Koroma, a Guinean called Tamba Gamanag, a Ghanaian called Sallu Sheriff etc.
More disturbingly, I encountered organized human trafficking networks involving some West African migrants who provided coaching sessions and orientation classes to asylum seekers on Sierra Leonean geography, history, politics, and culture. They studied important landmarks such as the Cotton Tree, the Moa River, and the Sewa River, memorized historical events, names of towns and villages, as well as key political figures and former rebel commanders of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), all in an effort to successfully deceive immigration authorities during asylum interviews.
An equally painful reality was that some of these individuals became involved in criminal activities after arriving in Europe. Because asylum seekers often faced severe restrictions on employment opportunities, some resorted to drug trafficking, credit card fraud, and other illegal activities in order to survive. Whenever such individuals were arrested, the identities attached to them were often Sierra Leonean or Liberian because those were the nationalities they had falsely assumed in their asylum documents. Over time, this contributed significantly to the negative image and suspicion directed toward Sierra Leone by many Western governments and immigration authorities.
What about the Deportation Pact with Trump`s Administration?
Given President Donald Trump’s strong political influence and determination to advance his conservative policy agenda, he has pursued a range of measures aimed at turning his campaign promises and policy objectives into reality. The deportation policy is one of the most prominent examples of these efforts.
The Trump’s immigration enforcement policies have targeted several categories of immigrants and non-citizens in the United States. The exact groups have changed over time, but the policies have generally focused on tightening immigration controls, increasing deportations, and limiting access to certain immigration protections as he seeks to stop citizens of certain countries he does not favour their existence.
One of the main categories affected is undocumented immigrants, commonly referred to as illegal immigrants. These include people who entered the United States without authorization, as well as those who entered legally but remained after their visas expired. Many of them avoid carrying identification documents in public, and in some cases authorities rely on fingerprint records and immigration databases for identification and tracking.
Another major group consists of asylum seekers. These are individuals who entered the United States either legally or illegally and later applied for protection because they feared persecution, violence, or insecurity in their home countries. Trump’s immigration policies significantly tightened asylum procedures, paused or delayed many asylum cases, and expanded rapid deportation measures for many applicants.
Immigrants with criminal records have also been a central focus of enforcement efforts. This category includes people convicted of violent crimes, drug-related offenses, gang activity, or repeated immigration violations. Trump repeatedly emphasized the deportation of what his administration described as “criminal aliens.”
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) holders have also faced increasing pressure. TPS beneficiaries are migrants from countries experiencing war, natural disasters, epidemics, or severe instability, including countries such as Haiti, Venezuela, Syria, and others. Trump’s administration wants to terminate TPS protections for several nationalities, potentially exposing many people to deportation.
Another affected group is DACA recipients, commonly known as “Dreamers.” These are young immigrants who were brought to the United States as children without legal status, and many have lived most or all of their lives in America. Some were even born and raised almost entirely within American society. During his first term, Trump attempted to end the DACA programme, but parts of the effort were blocked by the courts. In his second term, however, restrictions on DACA protections have continued to intensify.
International students and visa holders have also experienced increased scrutiny. This includes tighter monitoring of student visas, work visas. In addition, immigrants from certain countries considered “high-risk” by Trump, such as Muslim countries in the Middle East and Poor Africans have been subjected to extra vetting, delays, and restrictions.
What Is The Catch for Sierra Leone As a Nation?
Many countries enter migration cooperation arrangements because they expect diplomatic, economic, or strategic benefits in return. In some cases, such cooperation helps preserve bilateral trade relations, development assistance, security partnerships, visa access, and foreign investment opportunities. In global politics, there are only permanent interests; no permanent enemies.
For an economically struggling country like Sierra Leone, remaining in Donal Trump`s good book can be strategically important. Our government may therefore have viewed cooperation on deportation and migration matters as part of a broader diplomatic engagement rather than an act of exploitation. It is quite clear that programmes such as the Millennium Challenge Corporation Compact could be frozen by the Trump administration if it considered Sierra Leone to be acting against U.S. interests or viewed the country as an unfriendly partner. Given the limited volume of trade between Sierra Leone and the United States, the most significant potential benefits of this agreement likely include continuation of development assistance and the preservation of favourable visa arrangements for Sierra Leonean elites, diplomats and government officials.
At the same time, there are legitimate questions about the tangible benefits Sierra Leone receives from deportation cooperation. Recent changes in U.S. foreign assistance policy, including major reductions to programmes previously administered through USAID, have demonstrated that development assistance can be reduced or restructured regardless of a partner country’s level of cooperation. This has led some observers to argue that Sierra Leone should seek clearer and more substantial economic, development, and reintegration support in exchange for accepting the social and economic responsibilities associated with receiving deported nationals.
Conclusion: What Could Be the Potential Repercussion?
Calling a dog’s tail a leg does not give the dog five legs. In my opinion, this deal is simply a bad one. The potential benefits are nowhere near the likely negative sequences. To me, it is hardly any better than exploitation of a poor nation.
As a Sierra Leonean who has lived and worked abroad and possesses a good understanding of immigration processes, I would not argue that it is wrong for our government to accept deportees who are legitimate Sierra Leonean citizens. Although such deportees and their families may feel disappointed, distressed, or betrayed, as long as they are genuine Sierra Leonean nationals, I believe the government has a legal and moral obligation to receive them, regardless of their circumstances.
What I strongly oppose, however, is the idea of accepting nationals of other countries who have refused to cooperate with the Trump administration’s deportation policies. This issue is far more complex than it is often portrayed in public discussions and media appearances.
It is clear that we have agreed to receive individuals whom the Trump administration has declared unwanted, unwelcome, and facing uncertain futures. The affected individuals and their families are devastated and traumatized. Once they were illegal in the US, they had no chance to fly in and out for many years. Therefore, they would effectively become refugees in Sierra Leone. What is particularly alarming is that Sierra Leone is hardly a preferred destination, even for many of its own citizens, owing to the country’s persistent economic challenges and limited opportunities.
Many Sierra Leoneans, myself included, are questioning why the country would accept non-citizens when it is already struggling with unemployment, poverty, inadequate housing, limited healthcare, and overstretched public services. The suggestion that such individuals would simply return to their home countries after 90 days is difficult to accept. If these deportees require housing, healthcare, security, legal assistance, or integration support, the associated costs could place additional pressure on already limited national resources unless they are fully funded by the Trump administration. Unfortunately, there is little indication that this will be the case.
There are also legitimate security concerns. While not every deportee is a criminal, some individuals may be hostile to the receiving country or present other security risks. Sierra Leone would need to implement thorough screening, monitoring, and risk-assessment mechanisms. Without adequate safeguards, there could be concerns relating to criminal activity, radicalization, trafficking networks, or other threats, for which I do not believe the country is adequately prepared.
Furthermore, accepting nationals from countries that have refused to receive them could strain Sierra Leone’s diplomatic relations with those nations, particularly if they view such arrangements as interference in their sovereign affairs. While some countries may regard Sierra Leone as a cooperative international partner, others may criticize the country for accepting responsibilities that wealthier nations are unwilling to shoulder themselves.
Be the first to comment