Executive Summary This article examines Sierra Leone’s recent practice of accepting third-country nationals deported from the United States – many of whom held withholding-of-removal or CAT-deferral orders – and then returning them to their countries of origin. Drawing on treaty texts, case law, and primary sources, we find that these actions likely violate Sierra Leone’s non-refoulement obligations under international law. Sierra Leone is party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention, the Convention against Torture (CAT), the ICCPR, and the African Charter, and its 2007 domestic law expressly prohibits returning refugees or asylum seekers to danger. These obligations are absolute under the OAU Convention and CAT, and customary international law (arguably jus cogens) also forbids returning anyone to a real risk of persecution, torture or irreparable harm. According to recent reports, Sierra Leone signed a “third-country” deportation agreement with the US in mid-2026, agreeing to take up to 300 West African nationals per year (25 per month) whom US authorities were deporting. The first flight under this arrangement landed in Freetown on 20 May 2026 with nine West African migrants (5 from Ghana, 2 from Guinea, 1 each from Senegal and Nigeria). Local officials then placed the arrivals in hotels, reportedly planning to keep them at most 90 days and then return them “to their home countries”. If carried out, that plan would send people back to the very countries where US courts had formally found they would face persecution or torture – a circumstance triggering non-refoulement. This analysis shows that Sierra Leone’s actions (even if done at US request) independently violate multiple binding rules. OAU Convention Art. II(3) (absolute non-refoulement) and CAT Art. 3(1) (absolute ban on returning anyone to torture) forbid such removals. The ICCPR has been interpreted to prohibit removal to a real risk of arbitrary deprivation of life or torture. Sierra Leone’s Refugee Act 2007, section 16, explicitly provides that no one within Sierra Leone shall be returned to persecution or torture. Even if an individual had committed a “serious crime,” the OAU and CAT obligations admit no exceptions for security concerns or bilateral arrangements. Customary international law – recognized by UNHCR and courts as a peremptory norm – likewise bars returning anyone to persecution or torture. In sum, knowingly sending a person to a place of death or torture is unlawful, irrespective of who initiated the transfer. Sierra Leone, as the “State B” in a chain-refoulement scenario, bears direct responsibility for its own actions under the International Law Commission’s articles on state responsibility (Arts 12, 16, 29, 41, etc.). Bilateral agreements or external “instructions” cannot justify a breach of peremptory norms. We conclude that Sierra Leone’s conduct constitutes a serious violation of its international obligations. Sierra Leone is obliged to cease any removals to risk, to provide remedies and assurances of non-repetition, and the international community (including UNHCR and the African human rights bodies) should hold it accountable. 1. Introduction In recent years the United States has pursued third-country deportation arrangements: it removes non-nationals with final orders of removal to transit countries that then send them onward to their home States. This practice aims to circumvent non-refoulement by avoiding direct deportation from the US to the countries where people are at risk. For example, in late 2025 the US deported a Sierra Leonean woman, Rabbiatu Kuyateh, to Ghana even though an immigration judge had granted her withholding of removal (finding she would be tortured if returned to Sierra Leone). Ghanaian authorities held her in a hotel for days, then forcefully placed her on a bus bound for Sierra Leone, dragging her off when she resisted. The move violated the US judge’s order. Sierra Leone’s High Commission in Ghana acknowledged the incident and said it was investigating. This episode illustrates a broader pattern: States sometimes accept deportees from the US only to return them (or pass them on) to danger, raising grave legal questions. This article focuses on Sierra Leone’s own role in this phenomenon. In mid-2026, official sources reported that Sierra Leone entered into a “Third Country National” agreement with the United States under which Freetown would take in hundreds of West African migrants deported by US authorities. The first group – nine men and women from Ghana, Guinea, Senegal and Nigeria – arrived on 20th May 2026 and were held in a government facility. According to the Government of Sierra Leone, these migrants were to be temporarily sheltered and then flown back to their home countries within roughly two weeks. Notably, each of these countries (e.g., Ghana, Guinea) was the one from which the individuals had originally fled and which US courts had determined to be unsafe for them. This raises urgent legal issues. Sierra Leone has independent obligations under multiple treaties and customary law not to return anyone to a place where they face persecution or torture. We examine the law below and show that Sierra Leone’s actions cannot be justified by the bilateral agreement or any administrative convenience: such actions would plainly breach its non-refoulement duties (which, under African law and CAT, admit no exception). The analysis proceeds as follows: Part 2 reviews the international law of non-refoulement (treaty and customary). Part 3 surveys Sierra Leone’s specific commitments (treaties ratified and domestic law). Part 4 recounts the factual background of the US–Sierra Leone deportation arrangement. Part 5 analyzes Sierra Leone’s conduct under those legal norms, focusing on its knowledge of risk and treaty/customary violations. Part 6 discusses state responsibility, “chain refoulement” liability, and the irrelevance of bilateral deals in avoiding obligations. A conclusion underscores the remedies due. 2. The Principle of Non-Refoulement in International Law Treaty Framework The prohibition of refoulement – returning a person to territory where they face persecution, torture or other serious harm – is the cornerstone of refugee protection and of the law against torture. Its primary articulation is Article 33(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention: “No Contracting State shall expel or return (‘refouler’) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of [race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion].” This rule is absolute except as stated in Article 33(2). The 1967 Protocol incorporates Article 33(1) without geographic or temporal limit. Notably, Article 33(1) governs only “refugees” (as defined by the Convention), but the Convention’s definition is declaratory: it covers any non-national outside their country who fears persecution46L101-L109. Importantly, Article 33(1) does not require that the person have formal refugee status in the host State; any person in such circumstances is entitled to its protection from return. Africa’s regional refugee regime is even more protective. The 1969 OAU Refugee Convention applies to “every person” fleeing persecution or disturbances (including war) and contains an unequivocal non-refoulement rule. Article II(3) provides: “No person shall be subjected by a Member State to measures such as rejection at the frontier, return or expulsion, which would compel him to return to or remain in a territory where his life, physical integrity or liberty would be threatened for the reasons set out in Article I, paragraphs 1 and 2.” The wording is broader than the 1951 Convention: it covers any person (not only Convention refugees), forbids return under any circumstances, and imposes no exception clauses. The African Commission and UNHCR both emphasize that OAU Article II(3) is absolute. As one commentary notes, the OAU Convention’s non-refoulement rule “admits no exceptions whatsoever” (neither security nor criminality grounds) and is the most protective in force. The 1984 UN Convention against Torture further reinforces the ban on return to risk. Its Article 3(1) states that “no State Party shall expel, return (‘refouler’) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” The UN Committee against Torture has stressed this is an absolute, non-derogable prohibition, applicable to any person (regardless of status or conduct) and even in emergencies. Moreover, human rights treaties impose an equivalent duty. In the ICCPR, Articles 6 (life) and 7 (no torture/ill-treatment) have been interpreted by the Human Rights Committee to bar removal of anyone to a place of real risk of irreparable harm. Case law under the European Convention on Human Rights is consistent: in Soering v. United Kingdom and Chahal v. UK, the European Court held that expelling a person to face torture or execution breaches Article 3 ECHR absolutely (no balancing against security concerns). Similarly, the Inter-American system (Article 22(8) ACHR) outlaws deportation of anyone to danger of persecution, life- or freedom-threatening harm. Regionally, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981) protects life (Art.4) and freedom from torture (Art.5) and forbids “mass expulsions” (Art.12). The African Commission has concluded that, read together, these provisions prohibit refoulement of any person to a risk of torture or other serious violations. In Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa v. Angola (2008), the Commission condemned mass expulsions of foreigners without individual risk assessment as contrary to the Charter. The Commission emphasizes that non-refoulement under the Charter is absolute and applies regardless of the person’s immigration status (see IHRDA v Angola, Comm. No. 292/04). In Open Society Justice Initiative v. Côte d’Ivoire (2015), the Commission similarly found that the expulsion and statelessness of certain ethnic Guineans violated Articles 2, 5, 12 and 18 among others. In sum, African regional human rights law clearly forbids returning individuals to torture or persecution. Customary International Law and Peremptory Norm Status Beyond treaties, the prohibition of refoulement is widely recognized as customary international law binding on all States. The UNHCR and numerous legal scholars conclude that non-refoulement has become a rule of customary international law. The UNHCR Executive Committee repeatedly stated that non-refoulement is a “fundamental” norm, and the ILC has noted that expelling a person to danger violates customary law. Goodwin-Gill and McAdam note the near-universal acceptance of the principle. Many authorities even treat its core (especially the ban on returning someone to torture or persecution) as a jus cogens norm (a peremptory norm from which no derogation is allowed). For instance, the Inter-American Court has declared the prohibition of refoulement to be part of jus cogens, and the UNHCR (2007) Advisory Opinion observed that non-refoulement has “acquired the status of jus cogens.” Although some debate remains on the precise scope of the jus cogens protection, there is broad agreement that returning a person to face persecution threatening life or freedom or to torture is absolutely prohibited by peremptory international law. The peremptory nature is critical: a State cannot validly contract around this rule by treaty or executive agreement, nor invoke its own laws to justify a violation. 3. Sierra Leone’s International Obligations Sierra Leone is firmly bound by the full international regime of non-refoulement. It acceded to the 1951 Refugee Convention (and 1967 Protocol) on 22 May 1981, the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention on 16 November 1982, the UN Convention Against Torture on 25 September 2001, the ICCPR on 23 August 1996, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on 28 September 1983. Domestically, Sierra Leone enacted a Refugees Protection Act in 2007. This Act explicitly incorporates the international conventions into domestic law; its preamble states it is “an Act to provide for the recognition and protection of refugees; to enable effect to be given within Sierra Leone to the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees … the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees … and the OAU Convention …” Crucially, Section 16 of the Refugees Protection Act provides a statutory non-refoulement rule. It forbids rejecting, expelling or returning a refugee (or family member) from Sierra Leone if there is a threat that (a) they would be persecuted for Convention-defined reasons, or (b) their life, physical integrity or freedom would be threatened by war or serious disorder. This tracks the obligations of the 1951 and OAU Conventions. Significantly, the Act also echoes CAT: subsection (2) declares that “no refugee … shall be expelled, extradited or returned from Sierra Leone under any circumstances whatsoever” to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe they would face torture. In other words, Sierra Leonean law embodies an absolute ban on sending anyone to torture. The Act’s few exceptions (in 16(1) provisos) only allow deportation of a refugee found to be a danger due to national security or a particularly serious crime. But even these do not permit returning to a risk of torture: once Article 3(CAT) is engaged, no exception applies. In light of these commitments, Sierra Leone’s legal duty is stringent. By the OAU Convention and CAT (to both of which Sierra Leone is a party), the non-refoulement prohibition is categorical. Domestic law confirms that prohibition in no uncertain terms. Therefore, even if some deportees are characterized as security risks (which appears unlikely given their backgrounds), Sierra Leone could not remove them if they are at real risk of persecution or torture – no exceptions like those in Article 33(2) Refugee Convention would apply. In sum, Sierra Leone has accepted binding treaty and customary obligations not to return any person (citizen or not) to a territory where they face life-threatening or torture risks. 4. US–Sierra Leone Deportation Arrangement: Factual Background In mid-2026, Sierra Leone entered the global spotlight by agreeing to host US-deported migrants. On 16th May 2026, Reuters reported that Foreign Minister Timothy Musa Kabba announced a “Third Country National” deal: Sierra Leone would accept West African nationals expelled by the United States of America. The government committed to take in 300 ECOWAS citizens per year (maximum 25 per month) removed from the US, under a new US–Sierra Leone migration cooperation agreement. Kabba said the first charter flight was scheduled for 20th May 2026, carrying 25 migrants from Senegal, Ghana, Guinea and Nigeria. The scheme was r