Ghana’s decision to accept West African deportees from the United States has sparked sharp criticism within the country. In addition, eleven of the first fourteen deportees have filed a lawsuit against the Ghanaian government for human rights violations. According to their lawyers, the deportees were “dumped” in neighboring Togo and left to fend for themselves — a development that has further fueled public outrage in Ghana.
The opposition New Patriotic Party (NPP) has called for the suspension of the deportation agreement, arguing that it is unconstitutional, poses a threat to national security, and represents a departure from Ghana’s long-standing foreign policy principles. The NPP also pointed out that Ghana’s Supreme Court ruled in 2017 that, under Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution, any international agreement imposing binding obligations on the country must be ratified by Parliament — which, they say, did not happen in this case. NPP representatives accused President Mahama of disregarding the rule of law.
The Ghanaian government, however, insists that it accepted the U.S. deportees not as an endorsement of President Donald Trump’s immigration policy, but for humanitarian and pan-African reasons. Foreign Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa told Ghanaian media that the decision was made to support those affected by deportation, not to appease the Trump administration.
Muhammad Dan Suleiman, founder of the Center for Alternative Policy and Security in West Africa, described the decision as “complex,” saying it made little sense and reflected how the U.S. was outsourcing its immigration problems to countries like Ghana. Critics fear the agreement undermines democracy and the rule of law, arguing that if the government can bypass constitutional requirements, it sets a dangerous precedent. Suleiman also questioned whether Ghana’s economy was being subjected to undue U.S. pressure and whether the agreement was linked to a possible lifting of U.S. visa restrictions for Ghanaian citizens. According to the NPP, the deal raises concerns about the country’s “sovereignty, security, and policy direction.”
Furthermore, opponents argue that the government’s decision violates several international, continental, and national laws — including the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, the African Union Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, and Ghana’s own Constitution. Human Rights Watch has called on African nations to reject such “opaque” U.S. deportation agreements.