Copyright newsghana
The Netherlands has signed a Letter of Intent with Uganda to establish return centers for rejected asylum seekers, following a controversial third-country deportation model recently implemented by the United States with Ghana. The agreement, signed on Thursday by Dutch Minister of Asylum, Migration and Foreign Affairs David van Weel and his Ugandan counterpart during a United Nations meeting, represents a significant shift in European migration policy that mirrors recent US practices. The Netherlands and Uganda have agreed to work together to facilitate the return of migrants who are required to leave the Netherlands to their country of origin via Uganda, with the individuals concerned being nationals of countries in the region, according to the Dutch government statement. The deal comes just weeks after Ghana became the latest African country to accept third-country nationals deported by the U.S., with Ghana being the first West African country to announce it has entered into such an agreement with the U.S. to receive deported foreign nationals. In September, a group of 14 West Africans deported to Ghana from the US was subsequently sent to their home countries, including 13 Nigerians and one Gambian, despite lawyers representing some of the men saying they face a risk of persecution or torture. Under the Netherlands-Uganda arrangement, African migrants will be deported to a transit centre in Uganda, en route to their home countries, applying only to people from neighbouring nations who can’t return directly or voluntarily within a reasonable time. Van Weel framed the initiative as a pragmatic response to mounting migration pressures, particularly ahead of upcoming elections. “We are taking this step with Uganda to get migration under control. Obviously the human rights of people who return to their country of origin via Uganda will be safeguarded,” Van Weel said, adding that the Dutch government plans to consult closely with the EU and international bodies. The pilot program envisions a limited initial capacity, with Dutch authorities emphasizing that participation will be voluntary where possible. However, the center could also be used when migrants or their home countries refuse cooperation, raising questions about the voluntary nature of the arrangement. The facility is designed to accommodate individuals who sought protection in Europe but were denied asylum before their eventual repatriation to home countries. This represents a significant departure from traditional European approaches to migration management, potentially setting a precedent for other EU nations facing similar pressures. Human rights organizations have expressed serious concerns about the arrangement. Amnesty International and other advocacy groups warn that sending vulnerable individuals to third countries could compromise their safety and dignity, echoing criticisms leveled against similar US programs. The timing of the Netherlands-Uganda deal is particularly notable, coming as the US deportation model faces increasing scrutiny. Recent US deportees to Ghana claimed they were secretly removed from U.S. detention centres between September 5 and 6, 2025, shackled, and forcibly transported to Ghana without prior notice, leading to legal challenges. The broader implications of these third-country deportation arrangements extend beyond immediate migration management. Such deals represent a fundamental shift in how developed nations handle asylum and deportation processes, potentially outsourcing both the humanitarian and legal responsibilities to developing countries. Policy experts note that the Netherlands-Uganda agreement could establish a dangerous precedent in Europe, as governments increasingly explore outsourcing deportations amid rising domestic political pressure over migration. This approach allows countries to appear tough on migration while shifting the practical and ethical burdens to partner nations. The arrangement raises questions about compliance with international law, particularly regarding non-refoulement principles that prohibit returning individuals to countries where they may face persecution. While both the US-Ghana and Netherlands-Uganda deals include human rights safeguards, critics argue these protections may be inadequate in practice. Uganda’s agreement to participate reflects broader economic and diplomatic considerations. African nations accepting these arrangements often cite humanitarian grounds while potentially benefiting from enhanced bilateral relationships and development assistance from Western partners. The Dutch government has emphasized coordination with European Union institutions, the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and the United Nations (UN) Refugee Agency. However, the extent to which these international bodies have endorsed or approved such arrangements remains unclear. As European elections approach and migration continues to dominate political discourse, the Netherlands-Uganda model may influence other EU member states considering similar approaches. The success or failure of this pilot program could determine whether third-country deportation arrangements become normalized in European migration policy. The development also highlights the complex relationship between domestic political pressures and international humanitarian obligations. While governments face electoral demands for stricter migration controls, they simultaneously must navigate international legal frameworks and human rights commitments. Both the US-Ghana and Netherlands-Uganda arrangements demonstrate how migration policy has become increasingly externalized, with processing and return functions shifted to countries outside traditional destination regions. This trend reflects broader challenges in managing global migration flows while maintaining humanitarian standards.
