Thirty-six African migrants forcibly returned to Cameroon from the United States in 2026 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 legal protections in the U.S. preventing their deportation to their countries of origin.

Through their lawsuit, they seek legal safeguards from the Cameroonian government, the suspension of the bilateral migration agreement with Washington, and protection from potential further removals to their home nations. According to their legal representative, Barrister Joseph Fru Awah, the lawsuit also aims to challenge the legality of their ongoing presence in Cameroon under international and domestic law.

Statement from Barrister Joseph Fru Awah

Joseph Fru Awah: Every action we file in court is grounded in the hope that justice will prevail. We are urging the court to suspend the exchange of notes between Cameroon and the United States and to clarify the legal status of these individuals. Most critically, we demand that the court prevent Cameroon from deporting these migrants.

Legal challenges amid diplomatic interests

Joseph Fru Awah: Financial considerations should not overshadow the legality of this agreement. As an attorney, my role is to assess its compliance with national and international law—not to speculate on sovereign agreements between states. While Cameroon and the U.S. are free to engage in such accords, they must adhere to established legal procedures. That is precisely what we are demanding.

Our focus is clear: ensuring that the agreement complies with both domestic legislation and international conventions. We have petitioned the court to intervene, suspend the agreement, clarify the migrants’ legal standing, and halt any deportation efforts.

Conditions of the expelled migrants in Cameroon

Joseph Fru Awah: The psychological toll on these individuals is profound. Six months after their arrival, some have required hospitalization five times—an alarming statistic. The situation is dire, which is why we pursued legal action. Their well-being is at stake, and the court must act to protect them.