Get real time updates directly on you device, subscribe now.
The Government of Ghana has confirmed that 14 West African nationals recently deported to the country from the United States have been repatriated to their countries of origin. The group, consisting of 13 Nigerians and one Gambian, was briefly held in Ghana before being sent onward, despite growing concerns from human rights lawyers who argue that some of the men face the risk of persecution or torture upon return.
Background of the Deportation Dispute
The deportation has become the subject of a legal battle in the United States, with lawyers accusing U.S. authorities of attempting to bypass domestic laws that prevent sending individuals to countries where they could face serious harm. By transferring the men first to Ghana, a third country with no direct connection to them, critics argue the U.S. administration is evading established immigration protections.
This controversy is not without precedent. Immigration advocates have drawn comparisons to previous cases, including one involving a deportee mistakenly removed to El Salvador in violation of a U.S. court order. Observers say the pattern reflects a broader strategy by the Trump administration to rely on agreements with “third countries” to facilitate removals that would otherwise be blocked.
Legal Challenge and Court Involvement
On Friday, lawyers representing five of the men filed a lawsuit to prevent their deportation, citing existing protections against removal to their home countries due to credible fears of persecution. The filing, supported by Asian Americans Advancing Justice, highlighted that the men had already been granted forms of relief that should have shielded them from deportation.
Over the weekend, a U.S. federal judge sought assurances from the government about Ghana’s role in the process, questioning whether the transfers violated court orders. However, attorneys for the Department of Justice countered that U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over how other nations treat deportees. They also pointed to a recent Supreme Court ruling permitting the transfer of migrants to countries they are not from, even if their claims of possible torture have not been fully reviewed.
Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), one of the lawyers involved in the case, condemned the move as “a scheme to sidestep legal obligations.” He accused U.S. authorities of knowingly exposing the men to danger while hiding behind third-country arrangements.
Conditions of Transfer
According to the lawsuit, the deportees endured harsh treatment during their transfer. Lawyers allege that some of the men were restrained in “straitjackets” for nearly 16 hours during their flight to Ghana, and later detained in poor conditions upon arrival before being dispersed to their home nations.
Ghana’s Response
Ghana’s opposition leaders and civil society groups have voiced strong criticism of the government’s decision to accept the deportees, describing it as a challenge to national sovereignty and constitutional principles.
Foreign Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa defended the government’s actions, insisting that Ghana was not endorsing U.S. immigration policies nor receiving any financial incentives for its cooperation. Instead, he said the decision was guided by humanitarian considerations, emphasizing that the arrangement applied only to West African nationals.
Reactions from Neighboring Countries
Nigeria, whose citizens made up the majority of the group, expressed displeasure over not being consulted in advance. A spokesperson for Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs clarified that while the country has accepted deported nationals directly from the U.S. in the past, it opposes the practice of rerouting other nationals through Ghana. The Gambian government has not yet commented on the incident.
Wider Implications
The case underscores growing international concern over the U.S. administration’s approach to immigration enforcement, which relies increasingly on third-country transfers. Ghana is among several African states, including Eswatini, Rwanda, and South Sudan, that have received deportees under similar arrangements.
Human rights advocates argue that such practices undermine international protections for asylum seekers and could place vulnerable individuals at severe risk. Legal experts warn that the strategy may set a precedent for outsourcing deportations to countries with little or no connection to the migrants, raising questions about accountability and compliance with international law.