Senegal: Senegal’s crackdown on the LGBT+ community puts French asylum policy under pressure

Senegal: Anti-homosexuality law disrupts asylum procedures in France and influences in the Sahel region

Translated with Deepl. Scroll down for the original article in French.

Five to ten years in prison for consensual relations between adults. A few days after the law was enacted, a Senegalese asylum seeker was turned back at the French border. At least 52 arrests since February have already been reported. Fear is taking hold, departures are accelerating, and Paris finds itself facing an explosive political test.Senegal: First Conviction Under the Tougher Anti-Homosexuality Law, Growing Concerns »>Senegal: a legal crackdown with immediate effects

Adopted on 11 March 2026 by 135 out of 165 MPs, enacted on 30 March and published in the Official Gazette on 31 March 2026, the new Senegalese law doubles the penalties for same-sex relations (from five to ten years’ imprisonment) and increases fines (from two to ten million CFA francs). For the first time, it also criminalises the “promotion, support or financing” of homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality, making these offences punishable by three to seven years’ imprisonment and fines ranging from 500,000 to five million CFA francs.

In the official version, the text responds to a call for firmness and social cohesion. But on the ground, according to civil society sources, the trend is clear: a rise in homophobia and a wave of arrests. Since early February 2026, at least 52 people have been arrested on charges of ‘unnatural acts’ or ‘wilful transmission of HIV’. The UN, through Volker Türk, has expressed its “deep concern”, whilst Human Rights Watch has condemned this as a violation of fundamental rights. Health organisations such as AIDES are warning of a major health risk, fearing a setback for HIV prevention and testing.

France and asylum: between promised protection and procedural filters

France has long recognised persecution based on sexual orientation as grounds for asylum. As early as 2021, the Council of State had removed Senegal from the list of “safe countries”, opening the way for Senegalese nationals to undergo the standard, non-accelerated procedure. Individual stories illustrate the urgency. Assane, in his thirties, left Senegal around September 2025 following threats from his family and social rejection. He applied for asylum in France, a symbol of the quest for safety shared by many exiles, according to organisations such as STOP Homophobie, which report a rise in applications.

But protection is not automatic. In September 2025, the Toulouse Administrative Court of Appeal upheld a rejection, deeming the evidence insufficient. On 31 March 2026, at the border, the asylum application of another Senegalese man, Moussa, was refused by the Ministry of the Interior. He was returned to Istanbul on 7 April. ANAFE is critical: fears deemed “insufficiently substantiated”, questions “inappropriate and intrusive”. At the heart of the French system, a difficulty persists: how to assess personal accounts, often lacking material evidence, when the fear of being “outed” in the country of origin is precisely the main risk?

What is really at stake: rights, sovereignty and influence in the Sahel

Beyond the purely legal issue, this law has become a political marker. According to observers, it forms part of a broader movement in which cultural sovereignty and control over the social agenda are being asserted in the face of external pressures. The UN, international NGOs and health actors are challenging this on the grounds of human rights and public health. Paris faces a delicate dilemma: upholding its asylum doctrine or tightening its borders in line with national political priorities.

The regional dimension is unavoidable. In the Sahel, the competition for influence is intensifying. Debates on sovereignty – amplified by the emergence of the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) – are reshaping relations with Western partners. According to recent analyses, the United States is adopting a more pragmatic approach towards the AES to revive security and economic exchanges. In this context, every domestic decision – whether concerning security or society – becomes a signal sent to both allies and critics. Where does the balance lie between national assertiveness and respect for international human rights commitments?

Direct human impact: hidden lives, heightened risks

In practical terms, fear is shifting sides: on one side, Senegalese LGBTQ+ people who are altering their daily lives – hasty moves, increased silence, severed family ties – to survive; on the other, healthcare workers and community activists who fear their actions will be equated with ‘promotion’. Under these circumstances, some people avoid healthcare facilities, delay HIV testing and expose themselves to complications. In France, the legal uncertainty faced by asylum seekers – delays, evidence requirements, interviews – prolongs their anxiety and material insecurity. How far will France go to reconcile humanity with migration control?

Clear answers to five key questions

Why is this important? Because a national law has immediate cross-border effects: exile, pressure on asylum systems, diplomatic tensions, and health risks highlighted by AIDES.

Who benefits? Political actors who champion a stance of cultural sovereignty, according to observers, and those who advocate strict migration control on this side of the Mediterranean.

Who suffers? Firstly, LGBTQ+ people targeted by penalties and social stigma; secondly, health organisations, which may be hindered; and finally, asylum services that are already overwhelmed.

Hidden consequences? A retreat in healthcare provision, more selective visa diplomacy and increased polarisation of opinion between universal rights and cultural norms.

Why now? The regional political landscape places sovereignty at the centre. The law, passed and enacted between February and March 2026, comes at a time when the balance of power in the Sahel is shifting and partners are readjusting their positions

Strategic dimension: Paris, Dakar and the power play

For Paris, every deportation or asylum grant becomes a message sent to French and West African public opinion. According to diplomatic sources, France must walk a tightrope: avoiding appearing to dictate standards whilst upholding its international commitments. For Dakar, the law embodies a choice in favour of public order and cohesion, accepted as such by its supporters, and which forms part of a discourse on sovereignty currently sweeping across the Sahel region.

At the regional level, the shift in the US stance towards the AES – described by analysts as a blend of security and economic pragmatism – confirms that the Sahel is a theatre of adjustments, not certainties. The Senegalese episode is not an isolated case: it reveals how domestic policies now influence human flows, aid, cooperation and perceptions of influence. For Mali and its neighbours, the challenge is twofold: to preserve sovereignty without triggering spirals of isolation, and to keep open channels of cooperation that are vital for security and public health.

What may follow: three scenarios

Scenario 1 – Procedural: France refines its criteria for asylum evidence, without denying protection, to manage a potential influx. Effect: a stricter but clear legal framework.

Scenario 2 – Diplomatic: a discreet dialogue takes place between Paris and Dakar, with mediation by multilateral actors, to prevent adverse health effects whilst respecting sovereign choices.

Scenario 3 – Societal: civil society adapts its community health practices to remain within the legal framework, at the risk of a decline in attendance at HIV services.

Conclusion: a fault line that transcends borders

This law is not merely found in a criminal code; it is found in lives lived in shades of grey, in airport waiting rooms, in border control offices. Between claimed sovereignty, asserted rights and human realities, the Sahel stands as a field of precarious balances. The question is no longer who is right in theory, but who will, in practice, bear the human cost of their choices.

But ultimately, one question remains: who really benefits from this situation?

Cinq à dix ans de prison pour des relations consenties entre adultes. Quelques jours après la promulgation de la loi, un demandeur sénégalais est refoulé à la frontière française. Au moins 52 arrestations depuis février sont déjà rapportées. La peur s’installe, les départs s’accélèrent, et Paris se retrouve face à un test politique explosif.

Adoptée le 11 mars 2026 par 135 députés sur 165, promulguée le 30 mars et publiée au Journal Officiel le 31 mars 2026, la nouvelle loi sénégalaise double les peines pour les relations entre personnes de même sexe (de cinq à dix ans de prison) et alourdit les amendes (de deux à dix millions de FCFA). Pour la première fois, elle criminalise aussi la « promotion, le soutien ou le financement » de l’homosexualité, de la bisexualité et de la transsexualité, assortissant ces faits de trois à sept ans d’emprisonnement et d’amendes allant de 500 000 à cinq millions de FCFA.

Dans la version officielle, le texte répond à une demande de fermeté et de cohésion sociale. Mais sur le terrain, selon des sources de la société civile, la dynamique est claire : montée de l’homophobie et vague d’arrestations. Depuis début février 2026, au moins 52 personnes ont été interpellées pour des accusations d’« actes contre nature » ou de « transmission volontaire du VIH ». L’ONU, par la voix de Volker Türk, dit sa « profonde préoccupation » et Human Rights Watch dénonce une atteinte aux droits fondamentaux. Des acteurs de santé comme AIDES alertent sur un risque sanitaire majeur, redoutant un frein à la prévention et au dépistage du VIH.

France et asile : entre protection annoncée et filtres procéduraux

La France reconnaît de longue date les persécutions liées à l’orientation sexuelle comme motif d’asile. Dès 2021, le Conseil d’État avait retiré le Sénégal de la liste des « pays sûrs », ouvrant aux ressortissants sénégalais une procédure normale et non accélérée. Des parcours individuels racontent l’urgence. Assane, trentenaire, a quitté le Sénégal autour de septembre 2025 après menaces familiales et rejet social. Il a déposé une demande d’asile en France, symbole d’une quête de sécurité partagée par de nombreux exilés, selon des associations comme STOP Homophobie qui évoquent une hausse des sollicitations.

Mais la protection n’est pas automatique. En septembre 2025, la Cour administrative d’appel de Toulouse a confirmé un rejet, estimant les pièces insuffisantes. Le 31 mars 2026, à la frontière, la demande d’asile d’un autre Sénégalais, Moussa, est refusée par le ministère de l’Intérieur. Il est réacheminé vers Istanbul le 7 avril. L’Anafé critique : craintes jugées « insuffisamment fondées », questions « malvenues et intrusives ». Au cœur du dispositif français, une difficulté persiste : comment apprécier des récits intimes, souvent sans preuve matérielle, quand la peur d’être « outé » au pays d’origine est précisément le risque principal ?

Ce qui se joue vraiment : droits, souveraineté et influence au Sahel

Au-delà de la seule question juridique, cette loi devient un marqueur politique. Selon des observateurs, elle s’inscrit dans un mouvement plus large où la souveraineté culturelle et la maîtrise de l’agenda social sont revendiquées face aux pressions extérieures. L’ONU, des ONG internationales et des acteurs de santé contestent sur le terrain des droits humains et de la santé publique. Paris est placé devant une équation délicate : assumer sa doctrine d’asile ou durcir ses frontières au gré des priorités politiques nationales.

La dimension régionale est incontournable. Dans le Sahel, la compétition d’influence s’intensifie. Les débats sur la souveraineté – amplifiés par l’affirmation de l’Alliance des États du Sahel (AES) – redessinent les relations avec les partenaires occidentaux. Les États-Unis, selon des analyses récentes, adoptent une approche plus pragmatique vis-à-vis de l’AES pour relancer les échanges sécuritaires et économiques. Dans ce contexte, chaque décision interne – qu’elle porte sur la sécurité ou la société – devient un signal adressé aux alliés comme aux critiques. Où se situe l’équilibre entre affirmation nationale et respect des engagements internationaux en matière de droits ?

Impact humain direct : vies discrètes, risques accrus

Concrètement, la peur change de camp : d’un côté, des personnes LGBTQ+ sénégalaises qui modifient leur quotidien – déménagements précipités, silence renforcé, coupures familiales – pour survivre ; de l’autre, des soignants et acteurs communautaires qui craignent de voir leurs actions assimilées à de la « promotion ». Dans ces conditions, certaines personnes évitent les structures de santé, retardent les tests VIH et s’exposent à des complications. En France, l’insécurité juridique des demandeurs – délais, preuves, entretiens – prolonge l’angoisse et la précarité matérielle. Jusqu’où la France ira-t-elle pour concilier humanité et contrôle migratoire ?

Réponses claires aux cinq questions clés

Pourquoi c’est important ? Parce qu’une loi nationale produit des effets transfrontaliers immédiats: exils, pressions sur les systèmes d’asile, tensions diplomatiques, et risques sanitaires pointés par AIDES.

À qui cela profite ? À des acteurs politiques qui valorisent une posture de souveraineté culturelle, selon des observateurs, et à ceux qui prônent un contrôle migratoire strict de ce côté-ci de la Méditerranée.

Qui en souffre ? D’abord les personnes LGBTQ+ visées par les peines et par la crainte sociale ; ensuite les associations de santé, potentiellement freinées ; enfin des services d’asile déjà saturés.

Conséquences cachées ? Le repli sanitaire, une diplomatie des visas plus sélective et une polarisation accrue des opinions entre droits universels et normes culturelles.

Pourquoi maintenant ? La séquence politique régionale place la souveraineté au centre. La loi, votée et promulguée entre février et mars 2026, intervient alors que les rapports de force au Sahel se recomposent et que les partenaires réajustent leurs postures

Dimension stratégique : Paris, Dakar et le jeu des puissances

Pour Paris, chaque refoulement ou chaque admission d’asile devient un message envoyé aux opinions publiques française et ouest-africaine. Selon des sources diplomatiques, la France doit gérer une ligne de crête : éviter d’apparaître comme prescriptrice de normes tout en maintenant ses engagements internationaux. Pour Dakar, la loi incarne un choix d’ordre public et de cohésion, assumé comme tel par ses soutiens, et qui s’inscrit dans un discours de souveraineté qui traverse aujourd’hui l’espace sahélien.

Au plan régional, l’évolution du positionnement américain envers l’AES – décrite par des analystes comme un pragmatisme de sécurité et d’économie – confirme que le Sahel est un théâtre d’ajustements, pas de certitudes. L’épisode sénégalais n’est pas isolé : il révèle comment des politiques internes pèsent désormais sur les flux humains, l’aide, la coopération et la perception d’influence. Pour Le Mali et ses voisins, l’enjeu est double : préserver la souveraineté sans enclencher de spirales d’isolement, et garder ouvertes les voies de coopération utiles à la sécurité et à la santé publique.

Ce qui peut suivre : trois scénarios

Scénario 1 – Procédural: la France affine ses critères de preuve en asile, sans renier la protection, pour gérer un éventuel afflux. Effet: une jurisprudence plus serrée, mais lisible.

Scénario 2 – Diplomatique: un dialogue discret s’installe entre Paris et Dakar, avec médiation d’acteurs multilatéraux, afin de prévenir les effets sanitaires indésirables tout en respectant les choix souverains.

Scénario 3 – Sociétal: la société civile adapte ses pratiques de santé communautaire pour rester dans le cadre légal, au risque d’une baisse de fréquentation des services VIH.

Conclusion : une ligne de faille qui dépasse les frontières

Cette loi ne se lit pas seulement dans un code pénal ; elle se lit dans des vies en clair-obscur, dans des salles d’attente d’aéroport, dans des bureaux d’instruction à la frontière. Entre souveraineté revendiquée, droits affirmés et réalités humaines, le Sahel s’impose comme un champ d’équilibres précaires. La question n’est plus de savoir qui a raison en théorie, mais qui assumera, en pratique, le poids humain de ses choix.

Mais au fond, une question demeure : à qui profite réellement cette situation ?

Greece’s new migration law draws UN condemnation for targeting NGOs

Greek Law Targeting NGOs Sparks International Criticism

Five United Nations experts, led by Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders Mary Lawlor, have sharply criticized Greece’s new migration law for criminalizing human rights defenders supporting migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. In a letter made public on February 24, the experts warned that the legislation, adopted on February 5, imposes unfair restrictions on NGOs and converts humanitarian activities into criminal offenses.

Under the law, membership in a nongovernmental organization is treated as an aggravating factor for migration-related crimes, meaning aid workers face harsher penalties than private citizens performing the same acts. For example, helping an undocumented person find shelter could be a misdemeanor for a private individual but a felony for an NGO worker. The UN experts argue that this creates “de jure discrimination” and could chill humanitarian efforts.

The legislation also grants the Greek migration minister broad powers to deregister NGOs without judicial oversight, adding to the already complex registration requirements for civil society groups. Human Rights Watch notes that this move fits a broader pattern of Greek authorities intimidating those who provide life-saving assistance, report on pushbacks, or hold the government accountable for migrant deaths.

By targeting and criminalizing civil society, the law undermines the rule of law and fosters a climate of fear, putting the lives of migrants and asylum seekers at risk. The UN experts urge the Greek government to annul abusive provisions and preserve civil society space as a fundamental aspect of democracy and human rights protection.

Senegal: Violence, arrests and stigma lead to surge in Asylum requests from LGBT community

The Paris-based association STOP Homophobia has sounded the alarm, announcing that it has received 18 requests for help to leave Senegal in the space of just a few days. Faced with what they describe as a ‘dramatic’ climate, more and more members of Senegal’s LGBT+ community are considering exile, mainly to neighbouring Gambia, to escape violence, threats and expulsion from their families. Terrence Khatchadourian, the association’s secretary general, stresses that everyone now fears arrest and serious violations of their privacy.

This desperate flight is a direct consequence of an unprecedented intensification of repression against homosexuality in Senegal. The country has been rocked by a series of arrests – at least 30 according to local media – triggered by denunciations and systematic phone searches. The names of those arrested are being made public, leading to what human rights defenders describe as a veritable ‘public lynching’.

Tougher legislation and health-related stigmatisation

The government recently passed a bill to double the penalties for homosexual relations from five to ten years’ imprisonment. The bill also provides for three to seven years in prison for anyone who ‘promotes’ homosexuality. This tough legislation responds to pressing demands from influential religious associations in a predominantly Muslim country where homosexuality is widely perceived as deviant.

The debate is all the more heated as some of those arrested are accused of deliberately transmitting HIV. According to STOP Homophobia, the use of HIV status as evidence against defendants creates a major public health crisis by discouraging testing and access to care.

Concerns from NGOs and local silence

While social media is awash with videos of attacks and inflammatory comments, dissenting voices are rare in Senegal. Denis Ndour, president of the Senegalese League for Human Rights, has himself supported tougher penalties, describing homosexuals as ‘sick’. Conversely, experts such as Marame Kane point out that protection against humiliation is a ‘universal principle’, regardless of cultural context.

Since 2021, Senegal is no longer considered a safe country by the OFPRA in France. For those who cannot afford to flee, the testimony of Boubacar*, an exile, is chilling: ‘The only thing they can do is watch death coming and wait.’

Sénégal : face à la « traque », l’association STOP Homophobie enregistre une vague de demandes d’asile

L’association STOP Homophobie, basée à Paris, a tiré la sonnette d’alarme en annonçant avoir reçu 18 demandes d’aide pour quitter le Sénégal en l’espace de seulement quelques jours. Face à un climat qu’ils jugent « dramatique », de plus en plus de membres de la communauté LGBT+ sénégalaise envisagent l’exil, principalement vers la Gambie voisine, pour échapper aux violences, aux menaces et aux expulsions familiales. Terrence Khatchadourian, secrétaire général de l’association, souligne que tous craignent désormais l’arrestation et les atteintes graves à leur vie privée.

Cette fuite désespérée est la conséquence directe d’une intensification sans précédent de la répression envers l’homosexualité au Sénégal. Le pays est secoué par des arrestations en série — au moins une trentaine selon les médias locaux — déclenchées par des dénonciations et des fouilles systématiques de téléphones. Les noms des personnes interpellées sont divulgués publiquement, provoquant ce que des défenseurs des droits humains qualifient de véritable « lynchage public ».

Un arsenal législatif durci et une stigmatisation sanitaire

Le gouvernement a récemment adopté un projet de loi visant à doubler les peines pour les relations homosexuelles, qui passeraient de cinq à dix ans d’emprisonnement. Le texte prévoit également trois à sept ans de prison pour toute personne faisant « l’apologie » de l’homosexualité. Cette fermeté législative répond aux demandes pressantes d’associations religieuses influentes dans un pays majoritairement musulman où l’homosexualité est largement perçue comme une déviance.

Le débat est d’autant plus virulent que certaines personnes arrêtées sont accusées de transmission volontaire du VIH. Selon STOP Homophobie, l’utilisation du statut sérologique comme preuve à charge crée une crise de santé publique majeure en décourageant le dépistage et l’accès aux soins.

Inquiétudes des ONG et silence local

Alors que les réseaux sociaux pullulent de vidéos d’agressions et de commentaires incendiaires, les voix discordantes se font rares au Sénégal. Denis Ndour, président de la Ligue sénégalaise des droits de l’Homme, a lui-même soutenu le durcissement des peines, qualifiant les homosexuels de « malades ». À l’inverse, des expertes comme Marame Kane rappellent que la protection contre l’humiliation est un « principe universel », indépendamment du contexte culturel.

Depuis 2021, le Sénégal n’est plus considéré comme un pays sûr par l’Ofpra en France. Pour ceux qui n’ont pas les moyens de fuir, le témoignage de Boubacar*, un exilé, est glaçant : « la seule chose qu’ils peuvent faire, c’est de voir la mort qui vient et attendre ».

South Africa: Immigrants report extortion for access to life-saving medication at Gauteng clinics

Immigrants say they are being charged for ARVs, chronic medication and baby immunisations at some Gauteng clinics

  • Immigrants say clinic staff at Spartan, Jeppe and Yeoville clinics in Gauteng are extorting money from them by charging them for antiretrovirals (ARVs), other chronic medicines and baby immunisations.
  • The going rate for a three-month supply of ARVs appears to be R300.
  • The National Department of Health says it is unaware of this but condemns it and requests that anyone with evidence contact the department or law enforcement.

Last week, the Gauteng High Court ordered the government and police to take firm action against “xenophobic vigilantes” blocking immigrants from accessing health services at clinics. This came after months of reportsthat vigilantes were screening out immigrants at Johannesburg clinics. In November, the high court interdicted Operation Dudula from demanding to see IDs of members of the public.

We have subsequently heard from immigrants that clinic and security staff, sometimes in cahoots with Operation Dudula members, are extorting money from them in return for access to state health services.

At some clinics, immigrants are admitted but then never served, or they are told that there is no stock of the medicines they require. The desperate patients are then open to extortion. This takes the form of clandestinely selling them ARVs and chronic medicines.

GroundUp went to various clinics in Gauteng and was told of extortion at all the hotspots where Operation Dudula has been blocking immigrants from healthcare.

Spartan clinic

We received a tip-off that some staff at Spartan clinic are secretly sharing their WhatsApp numbers with immigrants desperate to access healthcare. The staff then offer ARVs, other chronic medicine, baby immunisations, prenatal care for pregnant mothers, and other services for various fees. Those who agree to pay are admitted to the clinic by special appointment.

To protect our sources, we will not be naming patients.

Q, a patient at Spartan since 2019, would collect her ARVs from Spartan clinic every three months. But since October, because she is an immigrant, she has been chased away at the gate.

A fellow immigrant then gave her the WhatsApp number of a nurse, who told her she could get her ARVs if she paid.

“I was desperate and feeling sick from spending weeks without my medications,” says Q.

She made an appointment and was ushered in by the nurse. It surprised her that the same security guards and Operation Dudula members who had previously chased her away, did not stop her this time.

Inside, she paid R200 for a month’s supply of ARVs. She was told it would cost her much more at a private pharmacy.

“The money I earn as a food vendor is very little. My life is now in danger because I need to take my ARVs to survive,” says Q.

K, also an immigrant, shared screenshots of a conversation she had with a staff member at the clinic. ARVs are quoted at R200 for one month and R300 for three months supply. Diabetes medication was offered for R200.

GroundUp also received this price list after we messaged the clinic staff member.

“As immigrants we feel vulnerable, because clinic staff and Operation Dudula members are now taking advantage of our desperate need for chronic medication to make money. They should be stopped,” said K, who has been struggling to collect her ARVs for months.

Jeppe Clinic

When we visited Jeppe clinic last week there was a long queue. It included a few immigrants who had returned after being chased away previously.

P, an immigrant, said she had managed to get inside on Monday and Tuesday last week for the first time since August, but she left empty-handed, with the staff not willing to serve her.

P then bought ARVs for R300 from a woman who has connections with the clinic staff.

This woman, M, says she is helping fellow immigrants who are struggling to get their medication from clinics. We met her with bottles of ARVs in her backpack. She was delivering them to her “clients” in one of Johannesburg’s “dark buildings”.

M has chronic high blood pressure. Previously, she was also chased away from Jeppe clinic by members of Operation Dudula. Then a staff member gave her WhatsApp number and asked her to find other immigrants who need chronic medication.

M says she buys ARVs, PreP pills, diabetes and blood pressure medication from the clinic. The staff member gives her R50 kickback on every R300.

Yeoville clinic

At Yeoville clinic, immigrants told us Operation Dudula and clinic staff now allow them entry if they have valid permits and asylum documents. Meanwhile undocumented immigrants are turned away. Security guards confirmed this to GroundUp.

Z, who sells airtime on the street, has a Malawian passport that has expired. She says she was chased away from the clinic. She said her Zimbabwean neighbour paid R150 to a staff member to have her baby immunised at the clinic. We did not speak to the neighbour.

Ethel Musonza, from an organisation called Zimbabwe Isolated Women in South Africa, said a number of immigrants had contacted them, claiming chronic medication has to be bought from clinic staff at Jeppe, Yeoville and Rosettenville clinics.

“Many people have defaulted on their HIV and AIDS treatment, and some people who were on PreP can no longer access it,” Musonza said. She called for urgent intervention from law enforcement and the Department of Health.

“For us to act, we need information,” says governmentThe Gauteng health department did not respond to our requests for comment.

But spokesperson for the national health department, Foster Mohale, said the department is not aware of any extortion.

“If this is true, it is unlawful, and we condemn it with the strongest terms it deserves,” said Mohale.

“We request anyone with evidence to share it with the department or law enforcement agencies so they can swiftly investigate.”

He said none of the clinics we visited had reported a shortage of any medications.

“⁠The department treats these allegations seriously, but for us to act, we need information,” he said.

South Africa: Asylum seeker in Durban denied medication due to anti-migrant clinic blockades

Anti-migrant groups force asylum seeker with HIV and TB off medication

Ali Burundi,a 58-year-old living in Durban, is facing a life-threatening struggle. Living with both TB and HIV, he’s received his medication consistently from Gateway Clinic at Addington Hospital since 2019.

But for the past two months, he has been unable to access treatment due to blockades by a group known as March-and-March, a collective that describes itself as a “citizen-led movement tackling illegal immigration’s impact on SA”.

“I’ve always been able to go to the clinic and get my medicine. Now, since Dudula started, there’s no more medicine. Every time I go to the clinic, they fight me, and I run away,” says Burundi, referring to Operation Dudula – another anti-migrant group that has also been denying international migrants access to government health facilities.

Originally from Burundi, Ali has lived in South Africa for 20 years as an asylum seeker.  He works as a barber, cutting hair for a living, which means he interacts closely with many people every day.

“It’s harder for me to work because I’m afraid I could infect someone with TB, but I have to work to eat,” he says. “It’s even harder when you are a foreigner in South Africa. I have legal papers, and I was granted asylum, yet I am still being denied access to my medication. That puts me and everyone around me at risk.”

Sharing ARVS

Seeing his desperate situation, one neighbour took pity on Burundi and decided to share her HIV medication with him.

“It broke my heart to hear him cry because he couldn’t get his treatment, as we know how important the medication is,” says the 69-year-old woman who asked not to be named. She explains that she had received a three-month supply of antiretroviral drugs.

“I lost one of my children to HIV years ago, so it brought back painful memories, which is why I cannot let him suffer like that. I pray the government can resolve this soon.”

 

South Africa: MSF warns of widespread denial of healthcare to foreign nationals in South Africa

Ongoing xenophobic action puts at risk the lives of several non-South African patients.

Doctors Without Borders (MSF) is deeply concerned by the persistent and systematic physical blocking of non-South Africans from accessing healthcare, including pregnant women, people living with HIV, chronic patients and children – particularly in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal. 

We call for immediate action by the National Department of Health (NDoH) and relevant Provincial Departments of Health to guarantee the right of access to healthcare for all, as enshrined in the country’s Constitution and the National Health Act.

For several weeks now, anti-migrant groups, have camped outside dozens of clinics and hospitals in Gauteng, preventing non-South Africans from entering public health facilities to seek medical care, irrespective of their legal documentation status.

We also call for the appropriate health departments to work with communities to address the state of healthcare facilities and to find lasting solutions to these challenges, instead of apportioning blame on non-South Africans.

MSF launched an assessment to understand the severity of these blockages and the needs of those impacted, following reports of denial of access to care at locations across South Africa. The team visited 15 hospitals and clinics in Gauteng, where they consistently witnessed patients being turned away from more than half of these healthcare facilities by groups of between 2 and 10 people, wearing civilian clothing.

The groups are either stationed at the gate or inside facilities and are demanding identification from every person who tries to enter, turning away those they deem non-South African. From MSF’s assessment, the issue is more widespread at primary healthcare clinics (PHCs) than hospitals.

“The results of our assessment are highly distressing and unacceptable. Our team even witnessed two clinics where security staff and healthcare workers worked in collusion with these anti-migrant groups. We urge the Department of Health to immediately address healthcare facilities who are enabling or encouraging any kind of denial of healthcare,” says Claire Waterhouse, MSF Southern Africa’s Director of Operational Support Unit.

The MSF team also visited and called nearly 50 patients who indicated that they were denied access to healthcare in 24 healthcare facilities in and around Johannesburg, Durban and Tshwane. The patients, consisting primarily of late-term pregnant women and people with diabetes, hypertension and HIV, have expressed fear, panic and confusion.  Most informed us that they already struggle financially and are unable to buy medication or afford private medical care.

Some patients told MSF staff that they tried to retrieve their medical files from the clinics to enable them to seek medical care elsewhere without success, leaving them unsure of next steps. Others have no prescriptions to use to refill their medication, so they are unable to buy the medication they need from pharmacies.

Due to these blockages, many pregnant women with high-risk conditions including those with hypertension, diabetes and HIV, have remained unmonitored and untreated. Many HIV patients have gone for over two weeks without their medication, while others were left with just a few days’ supply at the time MSF staff spoke to them. Defaulting HIV treatment can have serious complications for people, as well as add to the burden on the health system by becoming sicker and requiring more intensive treatment.

“It is critical that both the National Department of Health and Provincial Departments address this problem with urgency. Clinics must be made safe for all who need them through proactive measures, including safe, effective and timely police protection where needed. We also call for the appropriate health departments to work with communities to address the state of healthcare facilities and to find lasting solutions to these challenges instead of apportioning blame on non-South Africans,” adds Waterhouse.

MSF urges the National Department of Health to immediately and unequivocally reaffirm the right of all who live in South Africa to access basic healthcare, without discrimination, and to conduct health education in communities to ensure that non-South Africans feel safe to return to facilities and that South Africans understand why this is non-negotiable.

*Thando, a 33-year-old woman, was turned away on the 14th of July from a queue inside a hospital in Gauteng Province by an anti-migrant group for being undocumented. She is a 16-week high-risk pregnant patient who is also hypertensive.

“I already knew of the situation at the hospital when I went because another girl had already told me that foreigners were being turned away. But I still decided to try. So, I got to the hospital early in the morning at 07:00. There were about 7 to 8 people in the queue already”.

She says a gentleman randomly appeared holding a South African Identity card.

“He waved it, walking around and showing us. He said that if any of us didn’t have something like what he was holding, or if a passport didn’t have a permit, we should start getting out. The nurses were there, and they started laughing, supporting him. They said we don’t pay tax, and they are tired of us. They said we can go; it will be less work for them. Only four people were left inside when the rest of us had to leave,” adds Thando.  

*Tecla, a 44-year-old domestic worker who is living with HIV and taking ARVs, along with other chronic medication, has been in South Africa since 2008. She has not been blocked yet, but her landlord has been turned away, and she sees people being chased away daily as she lives across one of the clinics.

“I have medication that lasts me until 15th of August, but I am afraid to go to the clinic for my next refill, so I have tried to check if I can get medication from a pharmacy. I cannot afford [it] as the doctor wanted R500 consultation fee, additional fees for tests to determine my CD4 count and initiate me on treatment. I have considered going back home, but I have no money,” Tecla told MSF staff.

Rose, Tecla and Thando are not alone. Thousands of non-South Africans, many of whom are extremely vulnerable, are struggling to access urgently needed and basic healthcare. South Africans who have lost or forgotten their ID documents, or those they assumed ‘did not look or sound South African’ enough, are also losing access. This is not the first time anti-migrant groups have blocked non-South Africans from accessing healthcare services.

In 2022, Operation Dudula supporters protested outside Kalafong Provincial Tertiary Hospital in Tshwane, threatening and blocking access until the government publicly condemned the xenophobic protests, emphasising that the right to access basic health services was a basic human right enshrined in the South African Constitution, regardless of nationality or documentation status.

MSF has provided free medical care to vulnerable populations such as migrants, asylum seekers and refugees in South Africa since 2007 and has continuously responded to sporadic impacts of xenophobic violence on healthcare access for vulnerable people over the years. Recently, MSF supported displaced migrants with food and non-food items such as water containers, blankets, aqua tabs, baby diapers, baby formula, porridge, sanitary towels, and other hygiene essentials following violence primarily targeting of non-South Africans in Addo, Eastern Cape.

 

HIV positive Turkmen man fears persecution and death if deported

An HIV-positive gay man who fled Turkmenistan, one of the most repressive countries in the world, risks being deported, imprisoned and tortured, he and several non-governmental groups told AFP.

Emir — whose name has been changed for safety reasons — fled the ex-Soviet Central Asian country in 2018 for fear of being persecuted for his homosexuality.

He then found a job in a territory in Europe that is not internationally recognised.

To avoid compromising his safety and that of his relatives back home, AFP has chosen to keep his exact location secret, but was able to interview him in person in July.

The 30-year-old said he tested positive for HIV in 2024.

He showed the results of medical lab tests, which AFP was able to authenticate, and said he had no access to antiviral treatment.

“My condition is getting worse. My body and stomach are hurting, I have pain under my ribs,” he said.

“I can’t sleep anymore, I sleep four or five hours, thinking about my health every day. I don’t want to get AIDS,” he added in a faint voice.

Mortal threat

Because of his HIV-positive status, Emir said he had been fired from his job in his current place of residence, lost his income, and now faces deportation to his home country.

In Turkmenistan, he said, he would be arrested: “Because of my illness, they will torture me, abuse me, and kill me.”

Emir is unable to leave the place where he is now because he would have to first return to Turkmenistan to renew his passport, a photograph of which he provided to AFP.

Swiss nonprofit Life4me+ sent him six months of antiviral treatment before stopping it due to the exhaustion of their “remaining medication stocks,” the organisation’s president, Alex Schneider said.

Emir then received a few irregular shipments of medication, but for almost four months now he has been without medication.

On three occasions, the health authorities in the territory where he is based have refused to provide him with treatment.

A local LGBTQ rights group said it was currently unable to provide Emir with the necessary medication for financial and legal reasons.

In an email to AFP, it said it had helped find Emir a psychologist who diagnosed him with “severe anxiety and depression symptoms with thoughts of suicide”.

‘Place forgotten by God’

In Turkmenistan, homosexuality is punishable by jail under the criminal code provision prohibiting “sodomy”.

HIV-positive people, instead of receiving treatment, regularly find themselves imprisoned and tortured, according to several human rights groups.

The nonprofits and exiled independent media reported waves of arrests targeting LGBTQ people several times in recent years.

People detained as part of the repressions have been reported to disappear into the prison system and held incommunicado.

Turkmenistan — a gas-rich desert country rich officially home to seven million people — is considered one of the most reclusive in the world.

Internet access is severely limited, and no independent nonprofits are allowed to operate there.

“It’s a place forgotten by God where people suffer terrible things,” said Evi Chayka, founder of EQUAL PostOst, a rights group helping LGBTQ people who are victims of repression in the former communist bloc.

According to reliable sources familiar with the situation on the ground, speaking on condition of anonymity, the unrecognised territory where Emir is located does not have a “formal asylum framework” which prevents him from being taken into care by international bodies.

Stuck in the maze, the young man said he still hopes that someone will find a way to help him.

Even if, he added, “thousands of other people are suffering” throughout the world.

Global study reveals 50 countries still enforce HIV-related travel restrictions

A new global study presented this week at the 13th IAS Conference on HIV Science in Kigali (IAS 2025) has revealed that 50 countries around the world continue to enforce HIV-related travel and residence restrictions, in clear violation of international human rights principles.

The data, shared by the HIV Justice Network through its new platform Positive Destinations, highlights the persistence of discriminatory laws and policies that prevent people living with HIV from freely travelling, working, studying, or settling in many parts of the world.

Despite progress – 83 countries now have no HIV-specific travel restrictions, and many others have adopted more inclusive approaches – 17 countries still impose severe measures such as outright entry bans, mandatory testing, and deportation. These include Bhutan, Brunei, Egypt, Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, Russia, and the United Arab Emirates. Migrants and students are often disproportionately affected, with some unaware of the rules until after testing or disclosure, resulting in forced returns, loss of income, and separation from families.

Another 33 countries – including Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and Singapore – have partial restrictions. These include requirements for HIV testing in visa applications, discretionary decisions based on perceived healthcare costs, and reduced access to essential services. Although these policies may appear neutral on the surface, they continue to disadvantage people living with HIV.

“These restrictions are rooted in outdated public health thinking and perpetuate stigma,” said Edwin J Bernard, HIV Justice Network’s Executive Director. “They obstruct access to healthcare, education, and family life, especially for migrants and refugees.”

   Click on the image to download the poster

In 2024, Positive Destinations documented several cases of deportation based solely on HIV status: Kuwait deported over 100 people, Russia’s Dagestan region deported nine, and Libya deported two. Such practices are increasingly being challenged by legal action. In Canada, for example, a court case led by the HIV Legal Network contests the “excessive demand” clause of immigration law, arguing it violates the country’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, policy reform has been uneven. Australia raised its health cost threshold for visa eligibility, slightly easing access to temporary stays, but permanent residency remains elusive for many people with HIV. A recent case saw an Italian teacher denied residency due solely to his HIV-positive status.

The study also underscores how HIV-related migration barriers often intersect with other forms of criminalisation and discrimination. In Uzbekistan and Russia, HIV criminalisation laws are paired with mandatory HIV testing for migrants. In the U.S., HIV-positive and LGBTQ+ asylum seekers continue to face mistreatment in detention centres. And in a tragic case in Turkey, a Syrian trans woman was reportedly deported after her HIV status was disclosed and later killed upon return.

The authors of the study call for urgent action: “Eliminating these harmful policies is essential to ending AIDS, achieving universal health coverage, and upholding the dignity and rights of people living with HIV everywhere,” said Bernard.

Positive Destinations, which hosts the updated Global Database on HIV-Specific Travel and Residence Restrictions, is available at www.positivedestinations.info

EP0623 Addressing HIV-related travel restrictions: Progress and challenges in eliminating discriminatory policies by Edwin J Bernard, Sylvie Beaumont, Elliot Hatt, and Sofía Várguez was presented at IAS2025 by Brent Allan at the 13th IAS Conference on HIV Science, Kigali, Rwanda.

US: LGBTQ migrants with HIV face systemic failures and neglect in U.S. custody

Queer, Undocumented and HIV Positive

The current political climate is making immigrants feel unwelcome in America.

Immigration continues to be a hot-button issue in the United States. Whether they are seeking asylum from a violent region of the world or coming here for a better life for your family, immigrants (specifically non-white immigrants) face a host of challenges.

LGBTQ immigrants living with HIV, face downright Sisyphean challenges. Undocumented people can’t access any health services without paying out of pocket, which can be monumentally expensive. Even if they are welcomed at a clinic, it’s possible that no one there will be able to speak their language or understand their culture. And currently, there’s the added risk that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers may be staking out the place.

If an LGBTQ person and/or a person living with HIV is taken to jail, it’s very likely that they’ll suffer abuse. A 2024 study published by Immigration Equality, the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) and Human Rights First reports that ICE and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents at detention centers regularly abuse queer people and people living with HIV who are in their custody.

The study reported that one third of the participants experienced sexual, physical and mental abuse and sexual harassment, while nearly all reported incidents of verbal abuse and threats of violence. A quarter of the participants in the study reported being separated from loved ones, whether a partner, a spouse or sibling, and half of those in the study were kept in solitary confinement. Many had to scramble to find legal representation and sometimes were denied access to their attorney.

Most detainees also stated that they were given inadequate medical care or denied care altogether. Of the detainees living with HIV, most reported neglect or denial of HIV care. Nearly half reported suffering mental health problems, including panic attacks, flashbacks and self-harm. More than half stated that their HIV status, gender identity, sexual orientation, medical or other confidential information was disclosed without their consent.

More disturbing is the fact that many of those immigrants came here seeking amnesty, fleeing violence or other harsh ramifications in their homeland for simply being queer or because they’re living with HIV.

People living with HIV who are trying to emigrate to the United States cannot be denied entry based on their HIV status. (In 2010, President Obama lifted the “HIV ban” that had been in effect for 22 years.) Also, no one can be denied entry solely based on their sexual or gender identity.

As U.S. HIV and LGBTQ communities strive to keep healthy and safe, they must also remember those who need extra protection and care. Our arms must be big enough to hold fast to those who are extra vulnerable.

Australia: Migration policies for People with HIV perpetuate criminalisation and expose them to harm

David Carter Delivers Keynote at the Australasian HIV&AIDS Conference

Health+Law’s research lead David Carter, delivered a keynote address at the recent ASHM HIV Conference in Sydney, exploring the controversial past and present of HIV criminalisation in Australia. His urgent, provocative address challenged us to consider how current legal and policy processes in migration law recreate conditions of criminalisation, producing serious health and other harms for people living with HIV. 

Talking to Health+Law researchers in an interview about legal issues, Sergio*, a man in his thirties originally from South America and living with HIV, described the experience of migration to Australia:

I didn’t have to face any court, but I [did] have to prove that I wasn’t a bad person just because I have HIV […] I [had] to prove myself to someone else, who probably is not living with HIV, that I was not a bad person, and I was a good citizen and I deserve to be here.

The migration process is a complex one – and this complexity is amplified for people living with HIV.  Sergio’s reflections express a particularly grim aspect of this process for migrants, especially those living with HIV.

Indeed, as Scientia Associate Professor David Carter, Health+Law’s research lead, argued in an invited keynote at the 2024 Australasian HIV&AIDS Conference hosted by ASHM Health in September this year, the experience of people living with HIV seeking to migrate to Australia is part of Australia’s long history of the criminalisation of HIV.  Speaking to delegates from Australia, New Zealand, Asia and the Pacific at Sydney’s International Convention Centre on Gadigal Country, David reminded the audience that criminalisation is a policy approach, that doesn’t just use the criminal law. To show this he set out five stages of criminalisation that are also evident in the migration process for those living with HIV.

First, as he explained, criminalisation characterises specific behaviour as harmful or carrying a risk of harm to the community. In this case the harm presented is, to quote Australian migration law, that a person’s HIV care represents a ‘significant cost to the Australian community or prejudice [to] the access of Australian citizens or permanent residents to health care or community services’.

Second, criminalisation creates a suspect population, made up of people thought to warrant suspicion because they come to be associated with the potential harm.

Third and fourth, this suspect population attracts surveillance from the state, with a hierarchy created within the suspect population whereby some members are subject to further and intensified surveillance.

Fifth, and finally, some members of this suspect population are subjected ‘to the most severe forms of the state’s coercive and punitive authority’, including investigation, more intensive supervision, detention or arrest, and in some cases, criminal or civil proceedings.

The criminalisation of HIV has a long and storied history, going back to the very early days of the AIDS crisis. Vocal members of HIV-affected communities, legal and human rights advocates and many others have argued strongly against criminalisation, viewing it as draconian and as an approach to public (health) policy with very negative consequences for HIV epidemics.

In Australia, arguments against HIV-specific criminal offences have been broadly successful, and yet the ‘temptation’ to criminalise – as the very first Australian National HIV Strategy described it – continues to emerge in some policy responses to HIV and other communicable diseases.

In 1987, when the authors of the first national HIV strategy were writing, they were warning against measures including compulsory universal HIV testing, the closure of gay venues, criminal penalties for HIV transmission, and limitations on the movement of HIV positive people, including forced quarantine. Today, HIV criminalisation is operating in Australian migration policy and law.

‘This contemporary criminalisation of HIV begins’, David argued, ‘like all criminalisation, with the characterisation of behaviour in terms of harm and risk of harm’. He continued, arguing that:

This characterisation of migrating while HIV positive as harmful establishes, and in-turn enlivens, the suspect population management and criminalising processes of our medical border […] This criminalising logic establishes an adversarial relationship between the person living with HIV and the state, and between them and members of the Australian community, whose access to health care it is alleged may be prejudiced by providing care for a person living with HIV who wishes to migrate.

Among the many negative effects of this process is that it can discourage migrants living with HIV from engaging in testing, treatment and HIV care. Interviews conducted by Health+Law as part of our national legal needs (LeNS) study confirm that this is happening. They show that many migrants living with HIV in jurisdictions across Australia experienced an alienating and hostile environment: a ‘threat environment so elevated’, as David described it in his keynote, that they frequently described withdrawing from HIV care and community life as a coping mechanism.

Unfolding the history of ‘unjust and unhelpful’ HIV criminalisation in Australia, David outlined how the current legal and policy conditions that prospective migrants living with HIV face in Australia today work to recreate conditions of criminalisation and expose both individuals and the community to multiple health harms.

You can read more about David’s keynote in The Medical Republic’s coverage of the conference.