In a development that has drawn sharp criticism from human rights advocates and legal experts, 11 West African migrants deported by the United States to Ghana were subsequently sent on to their home countries over the weekend before September 23, 2025—despite explicit safety concerns and earlier assurances that they would remain in Ghana. The story, first reported by the Associated Press and corroborated by multiple sources, has ignited debate about the ethics and legality of the Trump administration's approach to immigration enforcement and third-country deportation agreements.
The group at the heart of this controversy included four Nigerians, three Togolese, two Malians, one Gambian, and one Liberian. After being flown from the U.S. to Accra under a disputed deportation program, these 11 men were initially held at a military facility in Ghana. Their ordeal did not end there. According to court documents reviewed by AP and statements from their legal team, eight of the deportees had legal protections against being returned to their home countries, citing credible fears of torture, persecution, or inhumane treatment if they were forced back.
Last week, in a desperate bid to halt their removal, the 11 migrants filed a lawsuit against the Ghanaian government, demanding their release from the facility and the enforcement of their human rights. Their lawyer, Oliver Barker-Vormawor, made it clear in court filings that the stakes could not have been higher. "We have to inform the court that the persons whose human rights we are seeking to enforce were all deported over the weekend," Barker-Vormawor told the court during a virtual hearing on September 23, 2025. He added pointedly, "This is precisely the injury we were trying to prevent."
The legal battle, however, was rendered moot almost as soon as it began. By the time the court convened, the migrants had already been sent to their home countries. Barker-Vormawor accused Ghanaian authorities of rushing the deportations specifically to block the case from proceeding, and noted that his clients were not given access to legal counsel before being removed. According to the lawyer, some of the deported migrants have since gone into hiding in their countries of origin—a grim testament to the dangers they feared.
The Trump administration's deportation program has long been the subject of controversy, with human rights experts and legal scholars raising alarms about the lack of adequate screening for asylum-seekers and the potential for serious harm upon return. As AP reported, the administration has sought to deter illegal immigration and remove individuals already present in the U.S., even when those individuals are difficult to repatriate due to documented safety concerns. In recent years, the U.S. has increasingly relied on third-country agreements to facilitate deportations, circumventing legal barriers that would otherwise prevent the return of migrants to countries where they face credible threats.
Ghana has joined a small group of African nations—including Eswatini, Rwanda, and South Sudan—that have accepted deportees from the U.S. under these arrangements. The premise is straightforward: if a migrant cannot be legally returned to their country of origin due to risk of harm, the U.S. can instead send them to a third country willing to receive them. But critics argue this practice amounts to little more than "outsourcing" the problem, with little guarantee that the migrants will be safe or that their rights will be respected.
Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice defended its actions in a federal court, asserting that it has no power to control how other countries treat deportees once they leave American soil. The Department emphasized that Ghana had pledged not to send the migrants back to their home countries, a promise that now appears to have been broken. As stated in court documents, "the U.S. government cannot control how another country treats deportees," and must rely on diplomatic assurances. But for the 11 men at the center of this case, those assurances proved tragically insufficient.
Human rights advocates have been scathing in their assessment of the situation. They argue that the U.S. has a moral and legal obligation to ensure that individuals are not sent to places where they face torture or persecution—a principle enshrined in international law and various treaties to which the U.S. is a party. The abrupt deportation of these migrants, without adequate legal review or meaningful safeguards, has been described as a violation of both the letter and spirit of those agreements.
"The administration is intensifying efforts to expel immigrants, including those difficult to repatriate due to safety concerns," noted a report by Reuters, echoing sentiments from other observers. The use of third-country agreements, once seen as an exceptional measure, has now become a central feature of U.S. immigration policy—one that, critics say, shifts responsibility away from the U.S. and onto countries that may not have the capacity or willingness to protect vulnerable migrants.
The legal and ethical questions raised by this case are far from settled. While the U.S. Department of Justice maintains that its hands are tied once deportees leave American soil, others argue that the U.S. government cannot simply wash its hands of responsibility. As Barker-Vormawor told the court, the migrants' removal was "precisely the injury we were trying to prevent," and the consequences of that decision are now playing out in real time.
Meanwhile, the fate of the 11 deported men remains uncertain. Some have reportedly gone into hiding, fearing for their lives. Others may face the very risks—torture, persecution, or inhumane treatment—that they sought to escape by seeking refuge in the United States. The Ghanaian government has yet to respond in detail to the allegations of rushed deportations and denial of legal counsel, and it remains unclear what steps, if any, will be taken to address the underlying human rights concerns.
As the debate over immigration policy continues on both sides of the Atlantic, this case stands as a stark reminder of the human cost behind the headlines. The story of these 11 men, their flight from danger, and their forced return, underscores the profound challenges facing migrants, governments, and advocates alike in a world where borders are tightening and protections are increasingly fragile.
For now, the legal case may be closed, but the questions it raises—about justice, responsibility, and the rights of the most vulnerable—are sure to linger.