Ghana’s recent agreement with the United States regarding the deportation of certain individuals has ignited significant legal debate over its constitutionality. Signed in mid-2025, the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Repatriation and Temporary Hosting of West African Nationals allows the US to send deportees to Ghana, including individuals who may not be Ghanaian citizens. As of October 2025, reports indicate that 42 deportees have already been sent to neighbouring countries like Togo and Nigeria, raising concerns about their treatment and legal status.
The Ghanaian government has faced criticism for not submitting this agreement to Parliament for ratification, a requirement under the country’s Constitution. Legal experts, opposition leaders, and civil society groups argue that this bypassing of parliamentary procedure undermines constitutional supremacy.
Constitutional Requirements for International Agreements
According to Article 75 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, the President can enter into treaties, but these must be ratified by Parliament. Specifically, the article states that a treaty must be approved by either an Act of Parliament or a resolution supported by a majority vote in Parliament. This means that the President cannot unilaterally bind Ghana to international agreements.
The Supreme Court of Ghana has previously interpreted this article in cases such as *Margaret Banful and Henry Nana Boakye v. The Attorney General*. In this case, the court determined that documents exchanged between Ghana and the US constituted an agreement that required parliamentary approval. This interpretation raises questions about whether the Ghana-US deportation agreement falls under the same category.
Legal opinions suggest that the deportation agreement does impose obligations on Ghana to accept and temporarily host deportees from the US. Consequently, many believe that the lack of parliamentary ratification signifies a procedural breach.
Government Defense and Legal Challenges
In response to growing criticism, Ghana’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, defended the agreement by highlighting its basis in humanitarian principles and pan-African solidarity. He emphasized that Ghana has not received any financial compensation for this arrangement and reiterated that it is merely a MoU, not a binding treaty. Ablakwa assured that Ghana retains the right to vet each deportee’s background before accepting them.
Civil society group Democracy Hub, led by activist and lawyer Oliver Barker-Vormawor, has filed a petition with the Supreme Court challenging the legality of the deportation agreement. They argue that the lack of parliamentary ratification constitutes a violation of Article 75. Furthermore, the group is seeking an interlocutory injunction to prevent the agreement’s implementation until the court resolves the case.
The Supreme Court was scheduled to hear the matter on October 22, 2025, but the hearing has been postponed to November 12, 2025, due to the Office of the Attorney General and the Ministry of Justice’s failure to respond to the application. The Attorney General has been given two weeks to address the issue.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the implications of Ghana’s deportation agreement with the US remain a critical point of concern for the government, legal experts, and civil society in the country. The outcome of the Supreme Court hearing will likely set a precedent for how Ghana engages in international agreements in the future.
