Ghana, USA, West African deportees: A test for democratic accountability
President John Dramani Mahama recently announced Ghana’s acceptance from the USA of deportees of West African origin.
Ghana’s move follows those of several other African countries – including, Uganda, Eswatini, Rwanda and South Sudan – whose governments have also received deported migrants from USA. Last month, the USA deported seven migrants to Rwanda while in July, five were sent to Eswatini and eight others to South Sudan.
Migrants deported from the USA to Ghana are at risk of further deportations to their home countries.
In the USA, a current lawsuit challenges the legality of such deportations, citing violations of immigration court orders.Plaintiffs allege maltreatment during transit and claim protections against forced returns were ignored.
Currently, an American court is probing these actions, questioning the government on safeguards against further deportations.
Why West African deportees?
According to President Mahama, nationals from various West African countries would be accepted into Ghana following a bilateral agreement with the USA.
So far, it is estimated that 14 deportees have arrived in Ghana, 13 from Nigeria and one from the Gambia.
President Mahama did not specify the total number of deportees that Ghana would accept.
He added that Ghana had already facilitated the return of the Nigerians to their country by bus while the Gambian was still being assisted to return home.
To explain the reason for the agreement with the Trump administration, President Mahama referred to ECOWAS’s free movement protocol allowing citizens of member states to enter and reside in other West African countries without a visa for up to 90 days.
He stated that ‘We were approached by the US to accept third-party nationals who were being removed from the US.
And we agreed with them that West African nationals were acceptable … All our fellow West African nationals don’t need visas to come to our country’.
According to Mr Mahama, it was appropriate to strike the deal with the Trump administration, as Ghana-US relations are in a ‘tightening situation’, with increased US tariffs on Ghanaian goods and visa restrictions on the country’s nationals. The agreement with the USA would, perhaps, encourage relations to remain positive.
Following pressure from the Minority in Parliament, Foreign Affairs Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, stated that the agreement with the USA was a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), not a binding treaty.
According to the Minister, before approval the decision was thoroughly discussed by Cabinet and vetted by the Attorney General. Mr Ablakwa added that the MoU was ‘grounded purely on humanitarian principles and Pan-African solidarity to offer temporary refuge where needed, to prevent further human suffering … [without] financial nor any material incentives’.
Humanitarian Duty or Conduit for Deportees?
Mr Ablakwa’s clarification raises an additional question: why has Ghana agreed to act as a conduit for deportees from other West African states rejected by their own governments? In practice, there is a real risk that some deportees may be stranded in Ghana if their countries of origin continue to refuse their return.
Critics worry that such a scenario would not only place unexpected social and economic pressures on Ghana, but also raise questions about national security and integration.
Mr Ablakwa insists that the government’s decision is motivated solely by humanitarian concerns.
He claims that facilitating safe passage for West African nationals to return to their own countries is consistent with Ghana’s historical role as a responsible and humane actor in the region.
Nevertheless, the risk of deportees becoming ‘stuck’ in Ghana remains unresolved, as there is no public evidence of binding guarantees from other West African governments that they will accept their citizens once they reach Accra.
Economic Benefits versus Democratic Principles?
There is tension between potential economic or diplomatic benefits and Ghana’s democratic principles. President Mahama’s suggestion that the deal might help soften Washington’s hardening stance on trade and visas hints at an expectation of reciprocity.
This has given rise to speculation that the executive branch is contemplating undermining Ghana’s sovereignty for possible economic benefits, linked to tariffs on Ghana’s exports to the USA.
There are also legitimate questions about process and accountability. While there is no direct economic transaction, there are still potentially unwelcome political and social implications for Ghanaians.
In avoiding parliamentary scrutiny, there is a risk of undermining the cherished principle of checks and balances essential to any democracy.
The government’s decision for the country to accept West African deportees from the United States is controversial.
On the one hand, for the Mahama administration, as explained by Foreign Minister Ablakwa, the decision is a purely humanitarian gesture which aligns with Ghana’s history and ECOWAS protocols.
On the other hand, critics point to the lack of parliamentary approval, albeit in the light of a MoU not requiring it, and the risk of deportees being stranded in Ghana, as well as the perception that the executive is making major commitments without democratic oversight.
It remains to be seen if the understanding with the USA strengthens Ghana’s international reputation as a humanitarian leader or erodes domestic trust in the Mahama government’s commitment to democratic governance.
Whatever the outcome, what is clear is that this seemingly technical MoU poses significant questions about Ghana’s sovereignty, accountability and the balance between humanitarian obligations and democratic principles.
The writers are an Emeritus Professor of Politics, London Metropolitan University, UK, and a Political Scientist.
