After a UK plan to drive asylum seekers to Rwanda last year, Kigali is debating a similar arrangement to the US despite concerns from rights groups.
This month, Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Ndungayle confirmed that his country is in discussions with Washington about immigration contracts, but specific details are lacking.
Analysts say this time things may work out for Rwanda.
Donald Trump’s government is actively deporting refugees to third countries like El Salvador, reportedly speaking with Libya. Libya is already suffering from conflict and economic instability, which has tens of thousands of refugees.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the administration is looking for a government, preferably far away, to accommodate deported individuals, especially convicted criminals who have served their sentences.
“We are working with other countries to say, ‘We want to send you some of the sleazy people to your country,” Rubio said at a cabinet meeting in April.
However, human rights groups raised concerns that such transactions could allow refugees from dangerous countries to be seen being sent to other dangerous countries and even to places they fled.
Here’s what we know about the proposed transaction:
What are the suggestions?
Minister Nduhungirehe spoke to the state television on May 5, refusing to provide full details of the discussion with Kigali’s Washington, but said the two countries were involved in “early stages” consultations.
“We are in bilateral discussions,” the official said. It is unclear how many refugees will be able to transfer or when it will begin.
In a statement to Al Jazeera, Rwandan government spokesman Yolanda Makoro said details have not been officially made.
“At this point, we are still in discussion and have not yet been agreed. One of our approaches is based on rehabilitation and integration, as opposed to prisons and detention centers,” she said Friday.
Previous reports from local Rwandan media suggested that the US could pay for the program to help deported refugees integrate into Rwandan society through scholarships and job support schemes.
The US has not publicly commented on Rwandan’s speech.
What appeared to be a potential model for future deportation, Washington quietly deported Iraqi man Omar Abdulsattar Ameen to the Rwandan capital of Kigali in April. Ameen was recognized as a US refugee in 2014 and is a Sacramento resident, but Joe Biden and the US government under the previous Trump administration were trying to take him out of the country.
In 2021, the court’s ruling said Ameen could be deported for lying about her ties to ISIL (ISIS). Ameen’s lawyer appealed the decision, saying he faced an execution in Iraq where he was accused of killing a police officer.
Rwanda has done similar transactions in the past, what happened?
In 2024, Rwanda tried to seal a similar refugee relocation agreement with the UK, but ultimately failed.
The Immigration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP) deal was originally agreed in 2022, when the UK faced a surge in migrants and refugees arriving on ships. The plan was for Rwanda to process asylum claims and resettle them in East African countries if the application was successful.
The contract also said that the UK would provide assistance funding to Rwanda and pay the costs of processing and integration for each individual. Each person will cost £45,262 ($61,358) in their first year. The plan was for the first five years. Individuals who do not want to stay will fly to their home country by Rwanda. The UK will pay £10,000 ($13,440) to everyone Rwanda returns.
However, the legal agenda stifled progress as immigrants advocates who accused the move of unethical and illegal launched several lawsuits. They argued that the contract violated the non-Leufour principles of the United Nations Refugee Convention, in order to protect people from being forced to prevent people from being returned to countries facing serious threats to life and freedom. At one point, by court order, the plane was ready to fly the first set of people to Rwanda. Despite being an opposition, the Congress passed the approval letter in April 2024.
However, after the election of a new labour government last year, Prime Minister Kiel Starmer called for the contract, calling it a “willbeat” by the previous Conservative government.
Separately, since 2019, Rwanda has partnered with the African Union and the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) to evacuate Libyan detention centres, where they faced exploitation, torture and sexual abuse.
The United Nations says of more than 2,200 people, with around 1,600 resettlements in countries such as Sweden, Norway, Canada, France and Belgium, about 1,600 have resettled. All refugees that have been relocated to date are from African countries. In return, the UN and the European Union fund local infrastructure, such as the construction of roads in Rwanda and villages.
Why is Rwanda keen on relocation agreements? How much profit will you earn?
Analysts say Rwanda is keen to secure a transfer of funds for its acquisition in order to earn profits and improve its position with Western countries.
While highly praised for transforming from a war-torn country that genocide against Tuttis in 1994 into a rapidly developing economy, Rwanda relies on aid, with around $1 billion in aid funding padding approaching nearly a fifth of its annual budget. Most of that money comes from Germany, the US and Japan.
Transactions with Western countries could potentially put the necessary funds into the country. The UK transaction has now been cancelled, but Rwanda received a prepayment of approximately £290 million ($389 million). Had it been successful, Kigali would have received about £150,000 ($202,000) per individual in five years.
Government spokesman Makoro did not speak about the financial details of the proposal. “African countries, including Rwanda, could be part of a solution to global challenges such as irregular migration in mutually beneficial bilateral relations,” she told Al Jazeera.
Importantly, analysts say Rwanda is likely looking for a better position with its western allies. Many have expressed dissatisfaction with military action in the East African region, particularly during the ongoing crisis in the neighbouring Republic of the Congo (DRC).
Like the US, a group of UN experts has accused Rwanda of supporting M23, a rebel group that seized major eastern DRC cities in fatal attacks since January. Rwanda denies the charges. The M23, fighting armed rebels in the Congolese army and alliance, claims they are defending the rights of the Congolese Tuttis, but Rwanda claims that Kinshasa is in support of the former massacre, which is currently operating as a DRC militia.
The US government approved Rwandan Regional Affairs Minister James Kabalebe in February over supporting Kigali’s M23, but the Trump administration’s tone has softened significantly in recent weeks, analysts say.
“This (the transaction) has something to do with that of course,” Amnesty International’s Christian Rum told Al Jazeera. “Rwanda is in a very difficult situation. There is certainly a return that we can expect from proposing this service. It’s political and we can’t look at it.”
The US, which is trying to seal off its mineral trade with the resource-rich DRC, is negotiating peace talks between the DRC and Rwanda. On April 25th, Congo’s Foreign Minister Therese Kaikwamba Wagner and Rwandan Ndungaia met with Rubio and signed an agreement that negotiated peace talks.
What do rights groups and the United Nations say about such transactions?
Rights groups like the United Nations and Amnesty International have raised fears about the safety and protection of refugees facing deportation into third countries.
In a statement last June that had UK-Western deals on the table, UNHCR said it repeatedly praised Rwanda’s “generous” offer to host facilities for evacuees from Libya, but it said it was opposed to changing the liability for asylum liability to the country.
“UNHCR has consistently clarified concerns about the serious risks posed to refugees, including refoulemement, and has found that the UK asylum partnership will make asylum decisions and change the responsibility for protecting refugees,” the statement read.
Amnesty’s Lum reflected those observations, noting that US dealings differ from the UNHCR-Libya incident, as third-party organizations like the UN are not involved in properly verifying that international asylum protection laws are being followed.
But Rum added, his opposition also speaks of the morality of such a deal.
“There’s a visa policy open in Rwanda, so if it was an option for these people so far, they would have been there in the first place,” Lum said. “This is to use people’s suffering. (USA) They show the most despicable people that it is rooted in prejudice rather than human dignity.
Analysts also question the way Rwanda responds safely to people with criminal history, and in countries that still tackle that complex, post-genocide past, if long-term integration with the community is possible.
Opposition politician Victoire Ingavia told Al Jazeera how the US deal might have an impact on Rwanda, but that hundreds have been evacuated since 1994’s genocide and dealing with multiple crises, including a new fight at the DRC.
“Rwanda must first solve internal and local challenges, so that it will stop production of immigrants,” she said. “This will prepare Rwanda to accept immigrants from other countries in the future.”
How did Rwandans react to discussions between the UK and the US?
The voices of the Rwandans themselves are not highlighted in these debates, whether the UK deal has failed or a US partnership has been proposed.
Rights groups like Human Rights Watch often criticize what they say is a oppressive political environment that limits freedom of press and expression, and an oppressive political environment where people may hesitate to share their views.
Last year, residents close to one Kigali hostel, which aimed to host refugees from the UK, spoke to Al Jazeera when Parliament approved the plan, but they spoke anonymously and offered a neutral take.
Dativ, 35, told Al Jazeera that the UK’s plans sounded like a great idea as money flows into Rwanda and asylum seekers bring more employees into the service sector. Rwanda’s economy relies primarily on services, tourism and agriculture.
Another Rwandan, a 45-year-old man who worked as a taxi driver in the same area and refused to give his name, said it could go both ways.