Lawsuit filed against Ghana over US third‑country deportation plan
In early June 2024 a coalition of lawyers, the Cornell Law School Transnational Disputes Clinic and the Global Strategic Litigation Council filed a suit against the Republic of Ghana at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice in Abuja. The plaintiffs argue that Ghana’s agreement to accept migrants deported from the United States under the “Third Country Deportation Initiative” violates both Ghanaian domestic law and regional human‑rights obligations.
Background: the US third‑country deportation program
The initiative, expanded during the second term of former President Donald Trump, permits U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to remove non‑citizens not only to their nations of origin but also to any third country that has consented to receive them, irrespective of the individual’s ties to that state. According to a Department of Homeland Security fact sheet released in March 2023, the program allows removal with as little as six hours’ notice, a provision that has drawn criticism from legal scholars and humanitarian groups for limiting due‑process safeguards.
Ghana, alongside Eswatini, announced in late 2023 that it would accept deportees under this framework. President John Dramani Mahama confirmed that the first batch consisted of 14 individuals—including nationals from Nigeria and Gambia—who were transferred to Accra in early 2024. The decision prompted immediate pushback from civil‑society organizations, which warned that sending people to a country where they lack social networks could expose them to exploitation, arbitrary detention, or refoulement.
Details of the ECOWAS lawsuit
The complaint, submitted on 3 June 2024, names 27 claimants who had previously sought asylum or other protective status in the United States. The plaintiffs’ legal team asserts that:
- None of the claimants currently reside in Ghana; many remain in hiding in their home countries or have fled to other states where they live in legal limbo.
- Ghana’s facilitation of the transfers breaches the 1999 ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance, which obliges member states to protect individuals from inhumane treatment.
- The transfers also contravene Ghana’s Refugee Act of 1992 and the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which Ghana is a signatory, by removing people without individualized risk assessments.
The suit requests that the ECOWAS Court:
- Declare Ghana’s participation in the US third‑country deportation scheme unlawful.
- Order the Ghanaian government to cease further transfers and to provide reparations, including legal assistance and safe‑haven options, to affected persons.
- Issue binding guidance to other ECOWAS members considering similar agreements.
Reactions from experts and officials
Human‑rights scholars have welcomed the litigation as a test case for regional accountability. Professor Kofi Mensah of the University of Ghana’s Faculty of Law, who has consulted on asylum policy for the UNHCR, noted that “the suit brings much‑needed scrutiny to bilateral arrangements that sidestep international protection norms.”
In a statement issued on 5 June, Ghana’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs defended the agreement, emphasizing that the transfers were conducted “in full compliance with national immigration procedures” and that the government remains committed to upholding the rights of all individuals on its territory. The ministry added that it is reviewing the lawsuit’s claims and will respond through the appropriate legal channels.
The U.S. Department of State has not commented directly on the ECOWAS case, but a spokesperson reiterated that the third‑country deportation program operates “consistent with U.S. law and international obligations,” adding that any concerns about specific removals should be addressed through diplomatic channels.
Implications for regional migration policy
If the ECOWAS Court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the decision could set a precedent limiting the ability of West African states to enter into ad‑hoc deportation agreements with external powers. Legal analysts suggest that such a ruling would reinforce the principle that regional human‑rights instruments supersede bilateral arrangements that lack substantive procedural safeguards.
Conversely, a dismissal might encourage other governments to pursue similar third‑country deals as a means of managing migration flows, potentially increasing pressure on asylum systems across the continent. Observers from the International Organization for Migration warn that without clear judicial guidance, the risk of “rights‑free zones” where migrants are shuffled between states without effective protection will grow.
Conclusion
The lawsuit against Ghana highlights the tension between sovereign immigration cooperation and the protection of fundamental human rights. By bringing the case before the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice, the plaintiffs seek to ensure that any transfer of individuals under the US third‑country deportation initiative respects due process, non‑refoulement, and the regional legal framework that governs West Africa. The outcome will likely influence not only Ghana’s future policies but also the broader discourse on how African states engage with external migration enforcement mechanisms.
