Democracy Hub challenges Ghana-US deportation agreement, citing constitutional and international law breaches

Accra, The civil society group Democracy Hub has filed a lawsuit against the Ghanaian government, contesting the legality of an agreement with the United States that facilitates the deportation of foreign nationals to Ghana. Legal analyst Ishaq argues that the government’s actions constitute a serious violation of Ghana’s constitution and fundamental international legal principles.

The legal challenge rests on two main pillars. First, the agreement allegedly breaches Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution, which requires parliamentary ratification for any international deal imposing obligations on the state. Critics contend that by labelling the arrangement a “Memorandum of Understanding” (MOU), the executive bypassed parliamentary scrutiny for a deal that functions effectively as a treaty. Ishaq describes the government as a “repeated offender”, citing previous cases such as the Margaret Baffour-Awuah ruling, which clarified the court’s interpretation of Article 75.

The lawsuit asserts that the MOU constitutes a circumvention tactic. While a standard MOU may not require ratification, the substance and impact of this agreement, obliging Ghana to receive deportees, elevate it to the status of a treaty. The government’s purported motive was to avoid publicity for what critics describe as an unfavourable deal.

Second, the agreement is claimed to violate international law, specifically the jus cogens norm prohibiting torture. Deportees reportedly fear persecution if returned to their home countries, and under international conventions to which Ghana is a signatory, the state is forbidden from facilitating such transfers. This renders the agreement unlawful regardless of parliamentary approval.

The government’s stated justifications, humanitarian grounds, African solidarity, and compliance with ECOWAS protocols have been widely criticised as misleading or factually inaccurate. Investigations suggest the underlying motive was a quid pro quo with the US, trading Ghana’s acceptance of deportees for the reinstatement of five-year multiple-entry visas for Ghanaians, prompting accusations of using African citizens as “bargaining chips”.

While the legal case is strong, procedural challenges exist. Tilos Jimmy Jr., affiliated with the NDC, noted that the injunction sought by Democracy Hub may fail, citing Supreme Court precedent that prevents injunctions from halting a public body’s statutory duties.

The lawsuit is ongoing, with the government expected to receive up to 40 more deportees. Advocates argue that the legal challenge provides an opportunity for a “listening government” to acknowledge errors, renegotiate the agreement, and align its actions with both constitutional and international law obligations.

The case highlights tensions between executive discretion, parliamentary oversight, and Ghana’s international obligations, emphasising the need for transparency and adherence to both domestic and global legal standards