Key Takeaways
• Tribunal let Ghanaian asylum seeker Winfred Kwabla Dogbey stay due to lack of adequate mental health care in Ghana.
• Decision was based on severe post COVID-19 syndrome, PTSD, and major depression, not general COVID-19 fears.
• UK tribunal used Article 3 of ECHR to prevent life-threatening health decline from inadequate treatment in Ghana.
A Ghanaian asylum seeker has been granted permission to stay in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 after a tribunal decided that sending him back to his home country would put his health and well-being in serious danger. This decision is especially important because it was not based on a general worry about catching COVID-19, but rather on detailed evidence about his health problems and the lack of proper medical care in Ghana 🇬🇭.
Who is Involved and What Happened?
The person at the heart of this case is Winfred Kwabla Dogbey, a Ghanaian asylum seeker who found himself fighting for the right to stay in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧. Back in 2020, he caught COVID-19 and ended up in the hospital. His illness was so bad that it led to multiple organ failure. Even after the virus left his body, the trouble did not stop there. He started to have serious mental health issues. Doctors later diagnosed him with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and what they called “post COVID-19 syndrome.”
Because his life took such a turn after catching the virus, Mr. Dogbey became part of a support group in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧. Here, people with similar trauma come together and help each other get better. This group played a key role in his recovery and ongoing stability.
Key Reasons for the Tribunal’s Decision
The tribunal, which is a special kind of court that handles asylum and immigration cases, looked very closely at the evidence before making its decision. They did not simply say “yes” because Mr. Dogbey was afraid of COVID-19. Instead, they paid careful attention to several important points:
- Lasting Health Problems: The tribunal learned that Mr. Dogbey’s fight with COVID-19 left him with ongoing physical and emotional troubles. Along with PTSD, he suffers from a major depressive disorder, which means he often feels very sad or hopeless and struggles to find the energy to keep up with daily life.
Lack of Treatment in Ghana 🇬🇭: Expert witnesses told the tribunal that the medical care Mr. Dogbey needs is simply not available in Ghana 🇬🇭. In fact, special help for his mental health problems, especially therapy for people who survived COVID-19 like him, was described as “practically non-existent.” When it comes to psychiatric care for severe mental health problems in Ghana 🇬🇭, reports say it is underfunded, often uses forced medication, and sometimes even relies on harsh treatments like electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) without anesthesia, which can be very distressing.
Risk of Getting Worse: Experts also explained that if Mr. Dogbey was sent back to Ghana 🇬🇭, his condition would likely get much worse very quickly. Without proper care, he might end up suffering greatly, both in his body and mind.
As part of her ruling, Judge Gill explained this clearly: “Given the severe and systemic problems identified… we determine that mental health treatment is not reasonably likely to be accessible… We therefore find… that Mr. Dogbey would face a real risk of being exposed to a serious, rapid, and irreversible decline…” (Source: GBNews).
What Law Was Applied?
The main law at the center of this decision is Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, or ECHR. This rule says that no one should have to suffer torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. In Mr. Dogbey’s case, the court felt there was enough evidence to show that forcing him to leave the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 and return to Ghana 🇬🇭, where he could not get the care he needs, would put him in real danger of suffering in this way.
How Did This Case Compare to Other Asylum Decisions in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧?
Usually, when a person applies for asylum, they must show they are at risk of serious harm in their home country because of things like war, political beliefs, or dangerous social situations. But sometimes, people are not given “refugee” status under these normal rules. In rare and special cases, however, a person may be allowed to stay in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 if leaving would break the country’s human rights rules.
This is called “humanitarian protection.” Mr. Dogbey’s case is a good example. The court did not say he was a refugee because of war or violence. Instead, the tribunal focused on the very unique danger he would face because of his health and the lack of medical help available to him in Ghana 🇬🇭.
This kind of ruling does not happen every day. It depends on very strong proof that a person’s health problem is both unusual and serious, and that they would struggle to survive or suffer greatly if sent back home. General worries about health issues, like being scared of catching COVID-19, are not enough on their own for protection under Article 3.
The Bigger Picture: Access to Healthcare in Other Countries
This case shows why having access to good healthcare is so important, especially for mental health. In many poorer countries, like Ghana 🇬🇭, top-quality mental health care can be very hard to find. For example, while some countries are able to offer regular counseling, therapy, and advanced medicines, these resources are rare in Ghana 🇬🇭. The situation is made worse by the fact that mental health issues can be heavily stigmatized, making it even harder for people to get the help they need.
For people with problems like PTSD or complicated health needs after COVID-19, the lack of care is not just an inconvenience—it can put their lives at risk. The tribunal explained that, in Ghana 🇬🇭, psychiatric care is not just limited, but sometimes also unsafe due to the use of forced treatments.
COVID-19 itself also put huge stress on health systems around the world. In wealthier countries, governments were able to set up special clinics, offer therapy, and provide social support for people coping with the aftereffects of the virus. Those who developed “post COVID-19 syndrome” found help in these places. In comparison, many other countries simply do not have enough doctors, nurses, or therapists who specialize in this kind of care.
How the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 Handles Cases Like This
The United Kingdom 🇬🇧 takes its human rights obligations seriously. When someone says they will face very harsh treatment or be unable to get important medical care in their home country, officials must look at these cases very closely.
First, immigration officers check if the applicant fits the legal definition of a “refugee.” If not, they see if other rules, like Article 3 of the ECHR, might apply. This means looking at very detailed medical records, expert statements, and reports on what kind of care is actually available in the applicant’s home country.
Tribunals hear these cases and, if needed, listen to arguments from both the person applying for asylum and the Home Office, which handles immigration questions. The process is usually long and detailed because the outcome is so serious.
As reported by VisaVerge.com, cases like Mr. Dogbey’s show that the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 has systems in place to protect very vulnerable people, even when they do not meet the standard asylum criteria.
What Sets This Case Apart
There have been stories in the past about people trying to stay in new countries by saying they are worried about health issues like COVID-19. But courts in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 almost never give someone permission to stay simply because they are afraid of catching a virus, even during a big pandemic. Mr. Dogbey’s case was different because:
- He had strong medical proof both of his physical and mental health problems.
- These were made worse directly by a serious past infection of COVID-19.
- Experts could clearly show that if he had to return to Ghana 🇬🇭, he would not be able to get the right care, and this would likely lead to very fast and severe suffering.
So, this ruling is mostly about his special medical needs after his battle with COVID-19 and the failures of Ghana’s 🇬🇭 health system, not just about COVID-19 itself.
Why Does This Matter for Other Asylum Seekers?
If you, or someone you know, is seeking asylum in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 for health reasons, this case tells us a lot about what works and what does not.
Here’s what stands out:
– You need to show more than just worry about getting sick. Courts want to see real, documented health effects that put you in a special category of risk.
– There has to be strong, up-to-date medical evidence and expert testimony.
– You need to prove that the kind of care you need is missing or unsafe in your home country.
– The tribunal pays close attention to how the lack of care would impact you, especially if things would get worse quickly.
This means not everyone who feels at risk can get protected status in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧. The person’s specific health and situation matter most.
Border Controls and the End of COVID-19 Emergency Measures
While COVID-19 changed a lot about traveling and health checks worldwide, with most countries now moving back toward normal border procedures, the unique needs of some people are still handled with care. The United Kingdom 🇬🇧, for example, still checks medical claims thoroughly before making any decisions. Standard COVID-related protections at borders, like testing on arrival for travelers, are no longer the main concern for asylum officials when looking at health claims.
You can find more details about how asylum is handled, including what documents are required and what officials look for, by visiting the official UK government site for asylum applications and requirements: https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum.
Looking Forward: Lessons from the Dogbey Case
The decision to let Winfred Kwabla Dogbey remain in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 points to broader lessons about fairness, the value of strong health care systems, and the way the country applies its responsibilities under European human rights rules. When courts see that a person will almost certainly suffer badly if sent home, especially because of weak or abusive health systems, the law allows for them to be protected—even if they would not normally qualify under the usual asylum rules.
For all Ghanaian asylum seekers considering a claim after serious illness, this case shows that with the right medical evidence and legal support, protection is possible—but only where the facts are as exceptional and well-proven as in Mr. Dogbey’s situation.
Summary and Next Steps
In summary, the tribunal’s choice to let a Ghanaian asylum seeker stay in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 did not rest on general COVID-19 fears. Instead, it depended on clear and powerful medical facts showing that returning to Ghana 🇬🇭 would bring about a serious and quick decline in his health, with no realistic chance of proper treatment there. The decision relied on the strong human rights commitments the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 has made under international law, and used detailed medical and expert evidence as its foundation.
Cases like this are rare, but they remind us how important careful review and fairness are in making immigration decisions that affect real lives. If you’re interested in learning more about asylum in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 or what protections exist for people with serious health needs, check out official resources like the UK government’s asylum pages and guidance from organizations that help migrants.
For all those reading, this case serves as a reminder: every story matters—especially when it comes to questions of health, safety, and the right to live with dignity.
Learn Today
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) → A legal provision prohibiting torture or inhuman or degrading treatment by the government, vital in asylum decisions.
Post COVID-19 syndrome → A collection of persistent physical or mental symptoms following COVID-19, also known as long COVID.
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) → A mental health condition triggered by experiencing or witnessing traumatic events, resulting in ongoing psychological distress.
Forced medication → Administering medicine to a patient without their consent, often regarded as a violation of individual rights.
Humanitarian protection → A status allowing someone to stay in a country when deportation would breach their human rights, even if not a recognized refugee.
This Article in a Nutshell
A Ghanaian asylum seeker, Winfred Kwabla Dogbey, secured the right to stay in the UK due to insufficient mental health care in Ghana. The tribunal’s decision was anchored in specific post-COVID complications and expert medical evidence, reflecting the UK’s careful handling of human rights-based health-related asylum claims.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• UK pension rules for Americans returning to the United States explained
• Americans can visit the UK for up to six months without a visa
• UK court rules against CICA in Cayman PR point system case
• UK government seeks private landlords to house asylum seekers with Serco
• Serco scheme expands UK government asylum accommodation services
