The decision by the Caricom Heads of Government meeting in St Lucia to discuss agreements with the United States on the transit of Third Country Nationals (TCNs) confirms that this is no ordinary arrangement. According to a Caricom press release, the proposed Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) concern the transit of individuals without criminal records to their home countries rather than their permanent settlement in member states. It also stressed that every effort would be made to ensure that these arrangements do not compromise national security or divert scarce public resources from Caribbean citizens. Those assurances are important, but are they complete?
Citizens across the region are being asked to accept agreements, the terms of which remain largely unknown. According to the release, some member states have already signed MOUs while others continue negotiations with Washington. However, none of the details has been released publicly. This is a lack of transparency that can breed uncertainty.
In Guyana’s case, the government confirmed earlier this year that discussions with the United States were advancing and that Georgetown would retain the right to reject any individual proposed for transfer. It was also stated that the United States would bear the costs associated with relocation. That explanation, however, leaves far more questions than answers as according to Amnesty International, Guyana is one of the Caricom members that has already signed a pact with the US.
If that is indeed the case, then citizens have a right to know what exactly the United States undertakes to pay for. Does the commitment extend beyond transportation to include accommodation, healthcare, security, legal representation and administrative costs if individuals remain in transit for extended periods? If documentation problems, diplomatic disputes or conditions in migrants’ home countries delay their departure, who assumes the financial and legal responsibility?
The distinction drawn between transit and settlement is certainly significant. Yet immigration history demonstrates that temporary arrangements do not always remain temporary. Circumstances beyond anyone’s control can transform short stays into lengthy ones.
This government therefore owes its citizens clear answers. What legal status would these individuals hold while awaiting onward travel? Would they be permitted to work? What access would they have to healthcare, education and social services? If a person cannot be returned to his or her country of origin because of conflict, persecution or the refusal of that country to receive them, what then? At what point, if ever, could temporary residence evolve into permanent status?
Amnesty International has estimated that approximately 15,000 people were removed to third countries during 2025, the vast majority to Mexico, and argued that many have subsequently faced arbitrary detention, prolonged uncertainty and limited access to legal assistance.
Amnesty has also highlighted that many of these agreements remain confidential, which is troubling. Is Guyana’s MOU among those?
According to the human rights organisation, a handful of these agreements have entered the public domain through Freedom of Information Act requests, but most have not. Among those that have become public, it stated, the provisions differ considerably. Some relate strictly to temporary transit before repatriation, while others involve asylum processing or broader migration cooperation. In certain cases, financial incentives running into millions of US dollars have reportedly accompanied the agreements. Amnesty International argues that these arrangements violate international human rights law. Whether or not one agrees with this conclusion, it is clear that transparency matters. Citizens cannot reasonably assess the implications of agreements that they are not permitted to read.
Human rights considerations are not peripheral to this discussion. International law recognises the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits transferring individuals to places where they face persecution, torture or other serious human rights violations. It also requires that individuals have a meaningful opportunity to challenge removal decisions before they are transferred. If Guyana has entered, or is about to enter, such an arrangement, the government must ensure that our obligations under international law are fully respected.
The issue also extends beyond humanitarian responsibility. Many Guyanese now live abroad and rightly expect to be extended certain rights and dignities. That same commitment to fairness should inform policies affecting migrants passing through. Compassion and accountability are not mutually exclusive; indeed, one depends on the other.
None of this is to suggest that cooperation with the United States should be rejected. Guyana and Caricom have enjoyed longstanding partnerships with Washington in areas ranging from security and disaster response to trade and development. Indeed, speaking at the United States Embassy’s Freedom 250 reception at the Four Points by Sheraton recently, President Ali described Guyana’s relationship with the United States as being “at its strongest”, saying it was underpinned by democracy, the rule of law, respect for international law and human rights.
He added that the relationship between Georgetown and Washington was underpinned by common values, including democracy, the rule of law, respect for international law, human rights and support for Guyana’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. These are all nice words, but as is well known partnerships work best when they are transparent and enjoy public confidence.
If this country’s MOU with the US is limited as the Caricom release stated and contains robust financial guarantees, legal safeguards and clearly defined timelines, then there is no reason not to publish it and explain it fully. Beyond the human rights implications, these agreements raise questions of sovereignty, public expenditure and accountability, among other things. Therefore bringing it out into the light is a democratic necessity. If the stewards of this country are asking citizens to accept this arrangement, they should provide the information needed for an informed national conversation.
Discussion