A coalition of Ghanaian lawyers has filed a petition before the Supreme Court seeking the suspension of a recently signed bilateral migration agreement between Ghana and the United States, arguing that the accord contravenes both Ghana’s Constitution and its international obligations.
The petition, led by lawyer and activist Oliver Barker-Vormawor, challenges the legality of the deal, which facilitates the repatriation of undocumented Ghanaian migrants from the US. Speaking to Radio France Internationale (RFI), Barker-Vormawor said the government had failed to obtain parliamentary approval before entering into the agreement, rendering it unconstitutional under Article 75 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution.
He also warned that the accord could place deported Ghanaians at risk of persecution or inhumane treatment, in violation of Ghana’s commitments under the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Protocol on Free Movement. “Returning migrants to conditions that expose them to danger or persecution is a breach of international law,” he said.
According to Barker-Vormawor, a new group of deportees from the United States arrived in Accra on Monday aboard a Boeing 767-200 from Baltimore, marking the third transfer since the agreement was signed on 10 September. Ghanaian authorities have so far confirmed only 14 arrivals and have declined to comment on reports of additional deportees on the latest flight.
The petitioners are urging the Supreme Court to issue an injunction suspending the implementation of the agreement pending a full judicial review. They argue that the executive branch overstepped its constitutional powers by concluding the deal without legislative oversight, thereby undermining democratic accountability.
Human rights advocates have echoed these concerns, noting that several countries have faced criticism for similar bilateral arrangements that facilitate deportations without ensuring adequate safeguards for returnees. They warn that such agreements, when implemented without transparency, can lead to human rights violations and erode public trust.
The government has yet to formally respond to the petition or provide clarity on the details of the agreement, including the number of deportees covered and the conditions under which they are being returned. The controversy has intensified calls for greater scrutiny of migration accords, particularly those involving vulnerable populations and international partners. If the Supreme Court grants the petition, it would temporarily halt deportation operations under the current framework, pending a constitutional determination. The case is expected to test the limits of executive authority in foreign agreements and Ghana’s adherence to its international human rights commitments.
