Deepening strains
The US suspends all visa processing in Zimbabwe without explanation, as African nations face diplomatic tensions over accepting US deportees.
The United States has suspended all visa processing in Zimbabwe, halting routine and emergency services without providing an official explanation. This move affects all visa categories and may signal a reassessment of bilateral ties. Simultaneously, Uganda has denied agreeing to accept US deportees, despite reports suggesting such an arrangement, reflecting ongoing diplomatic sensitivities surrounding US-Africa immigration relations. In Eswatini, the government faces a legal challenge for accepting five foreign nationals deported from the US after serious convictions. Activists allege the decision bypassed parliamentary oversight and raises human rights concerns. These developments underscore rising tensions and legal scrutiny over US deportation practices and their implications for African partner states.
Recent developments in Zimbabwe, Uganda, and Eswatini highlight a new and often contentious phase in US–Africa relations, where immigration and deportation have become central issues. While these cases differ in form, they all reflect a shift in Washington’s engagement with the continent. This shift is driven by domestic political pressures, the adoption of "externalisation" strategies, and evolving diplomatic priorities.
At the heart of these developments is the tension between US national security goals and the political legitimacy of African governments. The US approach mirrors European models of migration externalisation, which use methods like offshore processing and third-country resettlement to curb irregular migration and ease domestic pressures. However, for African states, participating in such arrangements, which are often made without public or parliamentary debate, carries significant legal, political, and reputational risks.
The most immediate and disruptive example of this trend is the abrupt suspension of all visa processing at the US Embassy in Harare. With no official explanation, speculation has ranged from diplomatic tensions to operational concerns or a broader policy shift. The decision has had concrete effects, restricting travel, study, business, and family reunification for Zimbabweans and fuelling perceptions of Washington as unilateral and less consultative. In the absence of transparency, the move risks being interpreted as a downgrading of bilateral ties.
Parallel controversies in Uganda and Eswatini further illustrate unease with the US's increasing reliance on African states to support its immigration enforcement. Uganda has publicly denied any formal agreement to accept US deportees, highlighting the sensitivity to domestic backlash. In Eswatini, civil society groups have launched a constitutional challenge to the government’s quiet acceptance of deportees, some reportedly convicted of serious crimes. This case raises critical questions about sovereignty, legal oversight, and human rights protections, and is particularly instructive. The legal challenge not only questions the bypassing of legislative oversight but also highlights alleged violations of deportees' rights, including reports of solitary confinement.
Such outcomes erode public trust and expose the dangers of opaque bilateral agreements. While financial or diplomatic incentives may accompany these deals, the political cost, through litigation, civil society pushback, or reputational damage, can quickly outweigh any perceived benefit. The secrecy surrounding these arrangements raises alarms for civil society over accountability and the rights of returnees, while also threatening to destabilise relations between Washington and African governments that are already navigating mounting domestic legal and political scrutiny.
Ultimately, these incidents point to a broader trend: the securitisation of migration as a tool of geopolitical leverage. The US is increasingly using its immigration policy, not just visa regimes and deportations, but also related regulatory pressures like foreign exchange controls on foreign companies, as a means of influence. This approach risks deepening uncertainty for businesses, institutions, and individuals dependent on cross-border mobility. For the private sector, visa suspensions and regulatory shifts threaten labour flows, market access, and bilateral partnerships.
The success of US efforts to externalise immigration enforcement increasingly depends on the internal political dynamics of partner countries. African states are unlikely to quietly absorb the risks associated with hosting deportees without facing legal, political, or social repercussions. Migration has thus moved to the centre of US–Africa relations, no longer a peripheral issue but a core point of contestation. For policymakers, investors, and civil society, the implications are clear: immigration policy is now tightly bound to questions of sovereignty, governance, and strategic alignment. Navigating this evolving landscape will require greater transparency, dialogue, and coherence across all stakeholders.