Thirty-six African migrants forcibly returned to Cameroon in 2026 from the United States have initiated legal proceedings in Yaoundé. The plaintiffs, hailing from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Angola, Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Senegal, Zimbabwe, and Morocco, had previously secured judicial protections in the U.S. preventing their repatriation to their countries of origin.

Through their legal action, they seek Cameroonian legal safeguards and the suspension of the bilateral migration agreement with Washington. According to their legal representative, Barrister Joseph Fru Awah, the lawsuit also aims to block any potential deportation to their home countries.

Barrister Joseph Fru Awah on the lawsuit’s objectives

Joseph Fru Awah: Every case brought before the court carries a specific objective. We are requesting the court to suspend the exchange of notes between Cameroon and the United States. Additionally, we urge Cameroon to clarify the legal status of these individuals. Finally, we seek an injunction preventing Cameroon from deporting these migrants.

Addressing concerns over the US-Cameroon migration deal

Joseph Fru Awah: My focus as a legal practitioner does not lie in the financial implications of international agreements. My role is to ensure their legality. While sovereign nations like Cameroon and the United States have the right to establish such accords, these must adhere to both national and international legal frameworks. This is the crux of our legal argument.

As legal counsel, my primary concern is whether this agreement complies with the law. Given our assessment that it breaches both international and national legislation, we have petitioned the court to intervene. We demand the suspension of this accord, clarification of the migrants’ legal status in Cameroon, and protection from deportation.

Conditions faced by the expelled migrants in Cameroon

Joseph Fru Awah: The psychological toll on these individuals is profound. Take, for instance, that some have required hospitalization five times within six months—a clear indication of their dire circumstances. This distressing situation prompted our legal action to secure their protection.