Ghana’s recent agreement with the United States to accept West African deportees has sparked intense debate across political, legal, and humanitarian circles, shining a spotlight on the complex intersection of immigration policy, constitutional governance, and pan-African solidarity. As the first West African nation to formalize such an arrangement with Washington, Ghana finds itself at the forefront of a contentious regional and international issue.
On September 15, 2025, Minister for Foreign Affairs Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa addressed the nation at the Government Accountability Series in Accra, aiming to clarify the government’s position and quell swirling rumors. “Ghana has not received and does not seek any financial compensation or material benefit in relation to this understanding,” Ablakwa stated, according to reporting by Devdiscourse. “Our decision is grounded purely on humanitarian principle and pan-African solidarity to offer temporary refuge where needed, to prevent further human suffering, and to maintain our credibility as a responsible regional actor.”
The minister’s remarks came in response to growing concerns that Ghana’s participation might be seen as an endorsement of the Trump administration’s hardline immigration policies. He was unequivocal: “Ghana’s decision must be understood as an act of Pan-African empathy. It is not transactional,” Ablakwa emphasized, echoing similar positions taken by Rwanda, Eswatini, Uganda, and South Sudan in welcoming fellow Africans in distress. “This should not be misconstrued as an endorsement of the immigration policies of the Trump administration.”
President John Dramani Mahama, who confirmed the arrival of 14 deportees—13 Nigerians and one Gambian—last week, explained that Ghana agreed to receive these individuals after Washington requested it take in “third-party nationals.” According to Mahama, the arrangement is consistent with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) protocol, which allows citizens of member states to enter and reside in other West African countries without visas, as detailed by local news sources.
The deportees, currently held in detention in the United States, faced the risk of being sent to unsafe countries, prompting Ghana’s decision to intervene on humanitarian grounds. Yet, the agreement has not been without controversy. Opposition lawmakers, notably the New Patriotic Party MP for Abirem constituency, have called for the suspension of the deal, arguing that it breaches Article 75 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution. This article requires international agreements to receive parliamentary approval before implementation. “The deal should have been brought to Parliament,” MP Owiredu asserted in a widely shared Facebook post, drawing parallels to the earlier “Gitmo 2” controversy involving Ghana’s acceptance of two former Guantanamo Bay detainees.
Legal experts and critics argue that the government’s approach raises important constitutional questions. Ablakwa, however, clarified that the agreement is a memorandum of understanding (MoU), not a treaty, and therefore does not require immediate parliamentary ratification. “Lawmakers will be able to review it if it is elevated into a full-blown agreement,” Ablakwa said, as reported by Devdiscourse. This distinction could determine the legal validity of the opposition’s challenge, which centers on whether the MoU constitutes a treaty requiring legislative oversight.
The controversy has also drawn criticism from regional and international bodies. The African Union’s human rights body has warned African countries to halt agreements that risk turning the continent into a “dumping zone” for arbitrary expulsions. Nigeria, Ghana’s neighbor, has refused to accept third-country migrants and accused the United States of using visa sanctions as leverage for deportation cooperation, highlighting a divergence in regional approaches to U.S. immigration enforcement.
Humanitarian concerns have further complicated the debate. According to court filings cited by local media, four deportees have been held in squalid conditions in an open-air detention facility operated by the Ghanaian military. This has raised additional questions about the adequacy of Ghana’s capacity to receive and process deportees, as well as the broader ethical implications of participating in third-country deportation arrangements.
The U.S. side of the story is no less fraught. On September 13, 2025, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan stated that the Trump administration appeared to be circumventing federal court orders by deporting five African immigrants to Ghana, which might then relocate them to countries where they could face torture or death, according to CNN. One plaintiff had already been sent from Ghana to his native Gambia, despite a U.S. court order prohibiting it. Judge Chutkan ordered the government to file a declaration by 9 p.m. ET that evening, detailing how it is ensuring deportees are not improperly sent from Ghana to their home countries.
The case is the latest legal challenge to the Trump administration’s strategy of deporting migrants to third countries—including El Salvador, Panama, Costa Rica, and several African nations—in an effort to speed removals and pressure migrants in the U.S. illegally to leave. The Department of Justice has argued that U.S. courts have no power over how Ghana treats deportees, while the U.S. Supreme Court ruled earlier in 2025 that the administration could send immigrants to countries other than their own, even if they had not had a chance to raise fears of torture.
For Ghana, the decision to accept deportees is part of a broader pattern seen across Africa. In recent months, the U.S. has deported migrants to Rwanda and other African countries under similar arrangements. The Trump administration claims nearly 200,000 people were deported in the seven months since Trump returned to office, with up to 140,000 deported as of April 2025, according to figures cited in local news reports.
Amid the legal, political, and humanitarian storm, the Ghanaian government has sought to reassure the public that all individuals proposed for deportation will be thoroughly vetted to ensure they pose no threat to national security. “Deportees will be vetted by Ghana to ensure that ‘hardened criminals’ do not enter the country,” Ablakwa stated, as reported by Devdiscourse. This vetting process, the government argues, is essential to maintaining national security and public trust.
Yet, critics remain unconvinced. Opposition lawmakers warn that the agreement risks aligning Ghana with what they describe as Washington’s “harsh and discriminatory” immigration regime. Regional human rights organizations caution against the potential for Africa to become a repository for migrants rejected by the West. Meanwhile, the Ghanaian public continues to grapple with the implications of the deal—balancing humanitarian imperatives against constitutional safeguards and national interests.
The coming weeks are likely to see further debate, as the government prepares a formal response addressing both the legal framework and policy justifications for accepting third-country deportees under ECOWAS protocols. As Ghana navigates this complex terrain, its actions may set a precedent for how African nations engage with powerful partners on sensitive issues of migration, sovereignty, and human rights.
In the end, Ghana’s response to the U.S. deportation arrangement will test not only its constitutional provisions but also its commitment to pan-African values and humanitarian responsibility—an issue that’s sure to reverberate far beyond its borders.