A landmark legal battle is unfolding in Yaoundé as 36 African migrants expelled from the United States file a lawsuit against Cameroon’s role as a transit destination. Their legal representative, attorney Joseph Fru Awah, announced this unprecedented move, demanding the suspension of the bilateral migration agreement with Washington and immediate protection from further deportations to their countries of origin.

The administrative court filing specifically seeks to nullify the migration accord that facilitates these transfers, while securing temporary legal status for the plaintiffs within Cameroon. The core argument centers on preventing any return to nations where they face credible risks — a violation of international humanitarian standards, according to the legal team.

“Cameroon cannot be weaponized as a mere stopover point for sending people back into the jaws of persecution or torture,” declared Fru Awah, who represents individuals originally from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Angola, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Senegal, Zimbabwe, and Morocco.

Financial coercion and diplomatic pressure

All 36 individuals had been shielded from deportation in the US through court protections until they were forcibly removed between January and May 2026. Now stranded in Yaoundé’s migrant processing facility — operated jointly by Cameroonian authorities and the International Organization for Migration — they remain in legal limbo. “Without identity documents or clear residency status, these individuals face severe mobility restrictions and constant uncertainty,” explained Fru Awah.

The legal challenge comes amid reports of substantial financial incentives offered by US authorities to African nations willing to accept deported migrants. Washington has allegedly dangled multi-million-dollar deals and threatened visa restrictions to secure compliance from countries including Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Equatorial Guinea, and others across the continent.

Cameroon’s participation in the US deportation framework places it at the center of a growing ethical and legal controversy. While American officials assert their right to redirect migrants to third countries when direct repatriation isn’t feasible, human rights advocates argue this practice undermines fundamental asylum protections.