By Nana Karikari, Senior Global Affairs Correspondent
The Ghanaian government’s agreement with the United States to accept West African deportees has ignited a fierce legal, political, and social debate. The controversy deepened after Foreign Affairs Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa confirmed that an additional 40 deportees are expected, a move that critics argue circumvents parliamentary oversight and raises serious national security questions. This situation highlights a complex interplay of humanitarian principles, constitutional law, economic realities, and human rights.
The Constitutional Mandate: A Legal Showdown
At the heart of the matter is the fundamental legal question of whether the Ghana-US agreement requires parliamentary ratification. The Minority, led by Samuel Abu Jinapor, contends that the deal is a “direct violation of the Constitution and an affront to the authority of the Supreme Court” because it was never presented to Parliament. He has been vocal, stating, “The government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs must lay this agreement before Parliament for scrutiny and ratification, as required under Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution.”
The government, however, maintains that the arrangement is merely a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which, by established convention, does not require parliamentary approval. Minister Ablakwa stated on Channel One TV that “if this initial understanding is elevated into a full-blown agreement, we shall not hesitate to comply with article 75 of the 1992 constitution by proceeding to parliament for ratification.”
Humanitarianism or a Political Ploy?
The government has consistently framed its decision as an act of Pan-African solidarity and a purely humanitarian gesture. Minister Ablakwa stated on Channel One TV that “we’re not doing the US a favour. We’re doing our fellow Africans a favour; we’re offering them refuge, hope.” He also stressed that Ghana received no financial compensation for its role.
However, this narrative is complicated by subsequent events. At least six of the 11 West Africans deported to Ghana were transferred to Togo, their lawyers confirmed, despite the government’s earlier claim that all deportees had been returned to their home countries. Lead lawyer Oliver Barker-Vormawor told the BBC that of the six sent to Togo, only three were Togolese nationals, adding that this action has made it impossible for the authorities to “bring them before the court or justify their detention.”
The Trump Administration’s Deportation Agenda
The agreement is a direct result of the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policies. Since taking office, the US has pursued an aggressive deportation agenda, often expelling migrants to countries where they have no familial or historical ties. This has placed significant pressure on nations, including Ghana, to accept these deportees. The Minority’s Ranking Member on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Samuel Abu Jinapor, has questioned the safeguards in place to prevent the country from becoming a “dumping ground” for migrants rejected by the United States. “We urge the government to provide full clarity on the processes, safeguards, and other broader implications associated with receiving these deportees,” he said.
Economic Strain and Human Rights Concerns
The deportations have sparked significant human rights concerns. The deportees’ lawyers filed a separate case arguing that their rights were violated. Oliver Barker-Vormawor noted his disappointment with Ghana’s justice system, stating that the court could have intervened to prevent their deportation. He further revealed that some of the deportees were held in a military camp, a detention he deemed illegal as they had not violated any Ghanaian law. Some deportees told the Associated Press they were “held in terrible conditions” and were not told why they were being deported. A US federal judge had also questioned the administration’s actions, noting that “her hands are tied” once the migrants were in Ghana.
While the government insists there is no financial benefit, critics have raised concerns about the potential economic strain of managing the deportees. An ordinary Ghanaian in Accra, who wished to remain anonymous, echoed this fear, expressing concern that “Ghana must not become a dumping ground for other countries.” A Ghanaian living in the US, speaking on a diaspora forum, expressed a different concern, saying, “I understand the government’s position, but this sets a worrying precedent. What happens if our own people are caught up in this kind of agreement? We need more transparency.”
Diplomatic Implications and National Identity
The agreement also risks damaging Ghana’s international image. The Minority has warned that the arrangement could be interpreted as aligning Ghana with the Trump administration’s controversial immigration policies. “While regional integration remains a core value of our foreign policy, it cannot be stretched to justify the forced reception of foreign nationals deported from other countries,” the Minority has stressed. The unfolding legal and political drama will ultimately determine the future of this agreement and set a precedent for how Ghana navigates international diplomacy, constitutional law, and its humanitarian commitments.
