Parliamentary Approval Required for Deportee Deal, Former Minister Claims

The New Patriotic Party MP for Abirem constituency argues that Ghana’s agreement to receive Nigerian and Gambian deportees breaches Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution, which requires international agreements to receive parliamentary approval before implementation.

President John Mahama confirmed Wednesday that 14 people, including several Nigerians and one Gambian, had been flown into Accra this week, with Ghanaian authorities facilitating their onward travel to their countries of origin. Ghana has become the first West African nation to accept deported migrants from the United States under this arrangement.

“The deal should have been brought to Parliament,” Owiredu said in a Facebook post, drawing parallels to previous controversies involving Ghana’s acceptance of Guantanamo Bay detainees. He questioned what benefits Ghana receives from such agreements, referencing the earlier “Gitmo 2” arrangement.

The criticism comes as U.S. Judge Tanya Chutkan questioned whether the Trump administration deliberately bypassed immigration laws by deporting Nigerians and Gambians to Ghana rather than their home countries. The judge suggested the administration crafted the deal to circumvent established immigration procedures.

Ghana’s agreement forms part of broader Trump administration deportation efforts. The Trump administration holds that up to 140,000 people were deported from the U.S. as of April 2025, with ICE alone deporting nearly 200,000 people in seven months since Trump returned to office.

The West African country said it had accepted 14 migrants deported from the US as part of a bilateral agreement with Washington. President Mahama justified the arrangement by citing ECOWAS’s free movement protocol, which allows citizens of member states to enter and reside in other West African countries without visas.

However, four deportees have been held in squalid conditions in an open-air detention facility operated by the Ghanaian military, according to court filings. This situation has drawn additional criticism about the humanitarian aspects of the deportation arrangement.

The constitutional challenge raised by Owiredu centers on procedural requirements for international agreements. Article 75 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution mandates that certain international agreements receive parliamentary approval, though the government has not yet responded to these specific constitutional concerns.

The African Union’s human rights body has warned countries to halt agreements that risk turning the continent into a “dumping zone” for arbitrary expulsions. This regional criticism adds pressure on Ghana’s decision to participate in U.S. deportation programs.

Ghana’s neighbor Nigeria, which has said it will not accept third-country migrants, accused the US of using visa sanctions as leverage for deportation cooperation. This contrast highlights different approaches among West African nations to U.S. immigration enforcement.

The arrangement follows similar agreements with other African countries. Last month, the US deported seven migrants to Rwanda while in the previous month five others were sent to different African destinations, indicating a broader pattern of third-country deportation agreements.

Opposition lawmakers have warned that the agreement risks aligning Ghana with what they describe as Washington’s “harsh and discriminatory” immigration regime. These critics argue that Ghana should not facilitate deportations to countries other than deportees’ origins.

The “Gitmo 2” reference recalls Ghana’s previous agreement to accept two former Guantanamo Bay detainees, which generated significant political controversy and ongoing questions about their current status and the terms of their residence in Ghana.

Legal experts suggest the constitutional challenge may focus on whether the deportation agreement constitutes a treaty requiring parliamentary ratification or falls under executive powers for routine international cooperation. This distinction could determine the validity of Owiredu’s constitutional arguments.

The government’s silence on these constitutional concerns may indicate preparation of a formal response addressing both the legal framework and policy justifications for accepting third-country deportees under ECOWAS protocols.

As the controversy unfolds, it highlights broader tensions between immigration enforcement cooperation and constitutional governance requirements, particularly regarding international agreements that significantly affect national sovereignty and regional relations.

The case may test Ghana’s constitutional provisions on international agreement approval while influencing future deportation cooperation between African nations and countries implementing aggressive immigration enforcement policies.