Ghana has been thrust into the middle of a brewing international storm after revelations that the United States is using the country as a transit hub for deporting African migrants, sparking outrage from civil society and opposition lawmakers who say the deal risks Ghana’s sovereignty and reputation.
The controversy deepened on Saturday when U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, D.C., accused the Trump administration of intentionally circumventing American immigration laws by flying Nigerian and Gambian migrants to Ghana, only for them to face onward removal to their home countries.
Chutkan ordered U.S. officials to explain how they are working to stop Ghana from deporting the migrants further, suggesting that Washington may have manipulated its partnership with Accra to avoid legal protections guaranteed under U.S. law.
President John Dramani Mahama confirmed earlier this week that his government reached an agreement with Washington to accept deportees from West Africa. According to him, 14 individuals have already been received under the arrangement.
But what the government describes as a routine cooperation on migration is escalating into a national debate. Opposition MPs say Parliament was not consulted on the deal and argue that Ghana is being dragged into an American immigration agenda that has been widely condemned as discriminatory.
“The government must immediately suspend this arrangement,” the Minority in Parliament said in a statement on Friday, adding that “it risks branding Ghana as a willing partner in policies that target Africans unfairly.”
Court filings in the U.S. paint a grim picture of the deportations, as the five migrants, four still held in Ghana and one already sent to The Gambia, say they were shackled, forced onto a U.S. military plane from Louisiana, and brought to Accra without being told their destination.
They allege they were held in straitjackets for the 16-hour flight before being transferred to a military detention facility outside Accra, described by their lawyers as an “open-air camp” with harsh conditions.
One of the men, identified only as K.S., had previously been granted protection under international law because of his sexuality. Despite this, he was deported from Ghana to The Gambia last week, where he is now in hiding.
The lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Asian Americans Advancing Justice, accuses U.S. officials of enlisting Ghana to “do their dirty work.” It argues that the practice breaches both U.S. immigration law and international conventions, including the prohibition on returning individuals to countries where they face persecution.
The U.S. Department of Justice has responded that the migrants are no longer in American custody and that courts have no power to interfere in foreign policy matters.
For Ghana, the diplomatic fallout could prove costly. Civil society groups warn that the arrangement, if allowed to continue, will tarnish the country’s reputation as a defender of human rights and the rule of law.
While Washington frames the deal as part of its broader “third-country” deportation strategy, Ghana is left to grapple with the political and moral consequences.
Although the government is yet to issue a detailed response to the criticisms, President Mahama explained at his media encounter that Ghana is fulfilling its international obligations and adhering to ECOWAS protocols on freedom of movement which allows the West Africans to enter the country without visas.
But as details of the migrants’ treatment emerge, pressure is mounting on Mahama’s administration to clarify the terms of the agreement.
For now, Ghana finds itself uncomfortably positioned between an American immigration crackdown and the global expectations of its role as a rights-respecting democracy.
