Lawsuit Challenges Ghana-US Deportation Deal in Supreme Court

(GHANA) A civil society group has asked Ghana’s Supreme Court to strike down the Ghana–US deportation deal, arguing that President John Mahama acted outside the Constitution and that returning migrants face unlawful detention and abuse. The lawsuit, filed by Democracy Hub on October 13, 2025, challenges the deal’s legality and the treatment of West African deportees who have been sent to Ghana under the arrangement tied to President Trump’s expanded removals program in the United States.

Democracy Hub’s case says the executive branch cannot unilaterally commit Ghana to accept involuntarily repatriated West African nationals without parliamentary approval or ratification. It also contends that holding civilian deportees in military custody violates the Constitution and that the reception, detention, and transfer of people under the deal breach international protections against torture. According to the filing, at least 28 people have already been brought to Ghana under the agreement, with some then sent to their countries of origin or left in third countries without documents.

The group’s court papers describe “deplorable, inhumane and degrading conditions,” including confinement in military facilities and denial of access to lawyers or timely court hearings. Democracy Hub argues that any onward removal of people who might face harm could violate the global ban on torture and refoulement — being forced back to a place where they might face serious abuse. The Supreme Court is expected to consider a request to suspend the deal on October 22, 2025.

Supreme Court challenge and core claims

At the heart of the case is the claim that President Mahama needed Parliamentary approval for any binding arrangement that changes how the state receives and processes deportees. Democracy Hub says the government failed to obtain such approval, undermining Ghana’s separation of powers.

The suit also seeks a declaration that military detention of civilians is unlawful, urging the Court to draw a clear line between immigration processing and criminal or national-security detention.

Key legal foundations cited in the filing:
– Domestic law: constitutional protections on due process, liberty, and humane treatment.
– International law: treaties and conventions that bar cruel or degrading treatment and prohibit returning people to danger (refoulement).

By highlighting alleged denial of access to counsel and court review, the suit frames the deportees not merely as immigration cases but as people with enforceable rights from the moment they arrive in Ghana.

Ghana’s government has not released the full text of the agreement. However, officials have offered political context. Foreign Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa said last week that Ghana accepted the arrangement to secure the lifting of US visa restrictions, extend a US trade deal, and prompt reconsideration of a 15% tariff. Those tradeoffs have fueled a widening debate over sovereignty and the price of closer ties with the United States 🇺🇸 on migration enforcement.

The controversy has spilled beyond the courts. Opposition lawmakers and activists argue the deal raises “serious constitutional, sovereignty and foreign policy concerns.” They say secrecy around the arrangement kept the public and Parliament from weighing the risks, including the possibility that Ghana could become a holding point for people with no clear path to legal status or safe return.

Political stakes and international angle

The legal fight in Accra echoes a parallel lawsuit in the United States, brought by Asian American Advancing Justice. That US case contends the deal was designed to bypass protections for migrants who had received fear-based relief from removal — people who convinced US authorities they faced danger if sent back.

US courts have recognized they cannot block Ghana from returning deportees once people leave US jurisdiction, creating a legal gap that makes the Ghanaian proceedings especially consequential for those seeking safety.

President Mahama’s disclosure in September 2025 that Ghana had agreed to accept deportees under President Trump’s expanded program sharpened political lines:
– Supporters say Ghana needs to restore normal visa processing and preserve trade ties.
– Critics argue short-term diplomatic or trade gains cannot justify rights risks, especially if migrants are held in military custody or transferred onward without proper screening.

For deported individuals and their families, the stakes are immediate and personal:
– Arrivals without documents, money, or contacts risk detention and confusion about their status.
– Rapid transfer to another country can mean loss of access to lawyers and any chance to tell their stories to a judge.

Democracy Hub’s complaint stresses those human costs, arguing that due process cannot be an afterthought once a person lands on Ghanaian soil.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the case could set a defining standard for how Ghana handles third-country nationals sent under bilateral removals arrangements. Possible outcomes include:
– If the Court orders a pause, the government may be forced to seek parliamentary approval and to build a rights-compliant reception system with civilian oversight.
– If the deal stands, Parliament may still press for clearer safeguards, including public reporting on detention conditions and guaranteed legal access.

Regional and policy implications

The lawsuit raises broader questions for regional policy. If Ghana upholds the agreement, other West African countries might face pressure to accept similar deals, especially when tied to trade, tariffs, or visa measures. That could shift how migrant flows are managed — moving decisions from courtrooms and parliaments to executive bargains.

Human rights groups warn this approach risks sidelining people who need protection and could lead to:
– Reduced transparency in detention and transfer practices
– Increased risk of refoulement or exposure to abuse
– Erosion of parliamentary oversight over foreign-policy commitments

For US readers, the dispute highlights the reach of enforcement policy beyond American borders. The United States often relies on partner governments to accept deportees and to document their return. Official guidance, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement removal operations, explains the process from the US side, but once planes land abroad, domestic law in receiving countries — and any bilateral deals — controls what happens next: https://www.ice.gov/removal

What to watch next

• The Supreme Court’s hearing on October 22, 2025, including any interim order to suspend the deal.
• A government response outlining the legal grounds for executive action and the safeguards in place for arrivals.
• Parliament’s reaction, which could include hearings or calls for disclosure of the agreement’s terms.
• Outcomes in the US lawsuit and whether any American agencies change procedures for people with fear-based protections.

Ghana’s courts often balance constitutional principles against practical state needs. Here, the balance includes migration control, diplomatic relations, and trade on one side, and rights protections and parliamentary authority on the other.

However the Court rules, it will likely press the government to be clearer about:
– Who is being received
– How arrivals are treated
– What standards guide any onward transfers

As the case moves forward, families of deportees wait for answers. Some wonder whether relatives have access to a lawyer or a phone call. Others fear rapid removal to a country they fled. The Democracy Hub suit has made those questions part of a national debate, placing the Mahama government’s choices — and Ghana’s legal obligations — under the strongest scrutiny yet.