- Advocates filed a lawsuit challenging Ghana’s deportation deal with the United States at the ECOWAS Court.
- The suit alleges indirect refoulement of individuals previously protected from persecution by U.S. immigration judges.
- Ghana accepted deportees in exchange for the restoration of five-year visas for its own citizens.
(GHANA) — A coalition of legal advocates filed suit at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice on June 29-30, 2026, challenging Ghana’s acceptance of deportees removed from the United States under third-country removals established during the Trump administration. The lawsuit represents 27 of approximately 60 individuals deported to Ghana since September 2025 and alleges that the arrangement facilitates indirect refoulement in violation of regional human rights protections.
The legal challenge centers on individuals who previously held protection under U.S. immigration law. Many deportees had secured withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3) or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), meaning a U.S. immigration judge had determined they faced likely persecution or torture if returned to their countries of origin. Their removal to Ghana, followed by transfer onward to those same countries, forms the core of the refoulement allegation.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem issued the memorandum “Guidance Regarding Third Country Removals” on March 30, 2025, authorizing DHS to send noncitizens under final orders of removal to third-party countries where the U.S. had reached formal or informal agreements. In a declaration filed March 5, 2026, in D.V.D. v. DHS, DHS official John A. Schultz characterized these agreements as “the only lawful, constitutionally sound mechanism to resolve [the] enforcement impasse” created by countries refusing to repatriate citizens. State Department spokesperson Tommy Piggott defended visa sanctions on January 14, 2026, citing authority to restrict processing for uncooperative nations.
The DHS Global Enforcement Initiative, launched in April 2025 to expedite removals, resulted in the detention of approximately 2,470 Ghanaian nationals in U.S. facilities by October 2025. Those detentions preceded the diplomatic arrangement that reshaped visa policy for Ghanaian applicants.
In September 2025, the United States and Ghana reached a confidential agreement. Ghana accepted third-country deportees, specifically West African nationals, in exchange for the reversal of visa sanctions the U.S. had imposed in July 2025. Before the pact, Ghanaian applicants were limited to three-month, single-entry visas. On September 27, 2025, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Allison Hooker formally restored eligibility for five-year multiple-entry visas for Ghanaians.
The lawsuit, filed at the ECOWAS Community Court in Abuja, names the Government of Ghana as defendant. The coalition includes the Ghanaian law firm Merton & Everett LLP, the Cornell Law School Transnational Disputes Clinic, and the Global Strategic Litigation Council. Lead counsel Oliver Barker-Vormawor stated on June 30, 2026: “No person should be returned to a place where they face persecution, torture or serious threats to their dignity and safety.”
Ghana’s defense relies on the 1979 ECOWAS Protocol on Free Movement of Persons, Residence and Establishment, which permits member states to accept citizens of other member states for up to 90 days. President John Mahama’s government argues this framework provides legal cover for the arrangement.
The non-refoulement principle at the heart of the suit draws from multiple legal sources. Under U.S. law, INA § 241(b)(3) prohibits removal to a country where an individual’s life or freedom would be threatened. Protected grounds include race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. CAT protection, codified at 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.16-208.18, bars removal to any country where an individual would more likely than not be tortured. The 1951 Refugee Convention’s Article 33 and the 1969 OAU Refugee Convention establish parallel protections under international and African regional law.
The complaint alleges that third-country removals to Ghana created a chain refoulement pathway. Deportees who held CAT or withholding protections in the United States were sent to Ghana, then forwarded to Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Gambia, or abandoned across the border in Togo without documents. Reports indicate some deportees were held in military facilities, including the Dema camp, before transfer. Legal advocates warn the process has rendered some individuals effectively stateless after their home countries refused to readmit them.
Several defense strategies may apply to individuals currently in removal proceedings who face potential third-country removal. Filing a motion to reopen under INA § 240(b)(5) or 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 may be appropriate where changed conditions or new evidence affects the original relief determination. Requests for stays of removal pending judicial review can be filed with the appropriate circuit court of appeals or the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Individuals with CAT or withholding protection facing third-country removal should document the basis of their protection, including the immigration judge’s findings, any appeal records, and evidence of conditions in the third country. Affidavits, country condition reports, and medical or psychological evaluations may support claims that transfer creates a refoulement risk.
Ghana’s position under the 1979 ECOWAS Protocol presents a distinct legal question. The protocol’s 90-day admission allowance for member state citizens does not address obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention or the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice has jurisdiction to interpret and apply the African Charter and ECOWAS instruments. Prior decisions have affirmed the court’s authority to address human rights violations by member states.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which the ECOWAS Court applies alongside community instruments, prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment under Article 5. Article 12 guarantees the right to seek asylum. The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights has interpreted these provisions to require states to refrain from returning individuals to countries where they face a torture risk.
The strength of the plaintiffs’ case may depend on demonstrating that Ghana knew or should have known that deportees held U.S. protection against return to their home countries. Evidence of coordination between U.S. and Ghanaian authorities, the terms of the confidential agreement, and the conditions deportees faced upon arrival will factor into the court’s analysis. Ghana’s argument that the protocol permits 90-day admission does not directly address what happens after that period expires. If deportees are forwarded to countries where they face persecution or torture, the protocol’s free movement provisions may not override non-refoulement obligations.
Evidence that may strengthen the plaintiffs’ position includes documentation of U.S. immigration judge orders granting withholding or CAT protection. Records of deportees’ onward transfer from Ghana and testimony about conditions in military detention facilities may also support the claims. Communications between U.S. and Ghanaian officials regarding deportees’ protection status, if obtained through discovery, could demonstrate Ghana’s awareness of the refoulement risk.
Factors that may weaken the plaintiffs’ case include the confidential nature of the U.S.-Ghana agreement, which limits access to evidence about what Ghana knew about deportees’ protection status. Ghana may also argue that it relied on U.S. representations regarding the legality of the removals and that the 90-day admission period was consistent with regional law. Individuals already removed to Ghana face significant jurisdictional barriers to seeking relief in U.S. courts, as most federal courts lack authority to issue orders affecting individuals outside U.S. territory.
Representation by qualified immigration counsel is critical. The intersection of U.S. immigration law, international human rights law, and ECOWAS regional law requires coordination across multiple legal systems. Attorneys should evaluate all available avenues for relief, including federal court litigation, BIA appeals, ECOWAS proceedings, and engagement with the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees.
The outcome of the ECOWAS lawsuit may establish precedent for other nations that enter third-country removal agreements with the United States. A finding that Ghana’s participation violated non-refoulement obligations could subject similar arrangements to legal challenges under regional human rights frameworks.
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
