South Sudan sought sanctions relief after accepting U.S. deportees

South Sudan asked the United States to consider lifting sanctions on senior officials and to support the prosecution of a leading opposition figure after agreeing last year to accept deportees from U.S. custody, according to diplomatic correspondence released this month and reported by the Associated Press.

The requests were outlined in two communications from South Sudanese officials that were made public by the U.S. State Department. In the documents, U.S. officials thanked South Sudan for accepting the deportees and provided details about the individuals involved, including their nationalities and criminal convictions.

Eight men were sent to South Sudan, including nationals of Mexico, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, and South Sudan. They were transferred to the capital, Juba, after spending several weeks on a U.S. military base in Djibouti, where they were held while a U.S. court temporarily blocked their removal. According to the AP, six of the men remain at a residential facility in Juba under security supervision. One South Sudanese national, Dian Peter Domach, was later released, while a Mexican national, Jesus Munoz-Gutierrez, was repatriated in September.

In one confidential letter dated May 12, South Sudan’s foreign ministry listed “eight issues” it said “required consideration.” These included easing visa restrictions for South Sudanese citizens, funding for a rehabilitation center, and assistance in addressing armed civilian groups. Among the most controversial requests was a call for the United States to lift sanctions on former vice president Benjamin Bol Mel and to support the prosecution of opposition leader Riek Machar, the suspended first vice president, who faces charges including treason and murder.

Bol Mel has been accused in a United Nations report of diverting nearly $2 billion in public funds intended for infrastructure projects into companies he owned or controlled. Once considered a powerful figure in government and a potential successor to President Salva Kiir, he was dismissed and placed under house arrest in November. Machar, meanwhile, has been a central rival to Kiir since their political split in 2013 triggered a civil war that lasted several years. Under a 2018 peace deal, Machar returned to government as the most senior of five vice presidents. Critics argue that his prosecution violates the terms of that agreement.

South Sudan also asked Washington to lift sanctions on its oil sector to encourage foreign investment and to consider investment in fossil fuels, mining, and agriculture.

The correspondence sheds light on the Trump administration’s largely secretive deportation policies toward African countries. Unlike traditional deportations, which return migrants to their countries of origin, the administration reached agreements with several African governments to accept deportees who had no prior ties to those countries. Flights were arranged quietly, and deportees often did not learn their destination until arrival. Countries including Rwanda and Uganda were reported to have received small groups of migrants under similar arrangements, raising legal and humanitarian concerns.

The terms of these agreements were rarely disclosed. U.S. officials offered little public explanation, while African governments often cited confidentiality when questioned. Reports suggested Washington used visa bans and aid leverage to pressure countries into cooperation. The lack of transparency prevented public scrutiny in both the United States and African countries, fueling speculation about political trade-offs and hidden incentives.

For African countries, the impact has been complex. Accepting deportees could be framed as a diplomatic gesture toward Washington, but it also imposed burdens on already strained social and economic systems. Civil society groups and human rights organizations across Africa largely condemned the arrangements, arguing they treated African countries as “dumping grounds”. Governments’ reluctance to clarify the terms only deepened suspicions that the agreements were driven by political expediency rather than humanitarian concern.

The South Sudan case highlights how some African governments sought political concessions beyond financial incentives in exchange for accepting deportees. While the full terms of the agreement remain unclear, South Sudan’s requests come at a time when the country is facing renewed conflict and growing fears of large-scale violence.