
NDC’s Prof. Alidu Seidu, declared MP-elect for Tamale Central
5 mins read
23rd September 2025 4:35:21 PM
4 mins readBy: Phoebe Martekie Doku
The government of Ghana has sent back home the fourteen (14) West African migrants who arrived in the country after their deportation from the United States (U.S). This was made known today, Tuesday, September 23, after an Accra High Court struck out a human rights case filed by eleven (11) of the 14 West African nationals against the government. However, during court proceedings lawyer for the applicants, Oliver Barker-Vormawor, revealed that the individuals returned to their home countries over the weekend despite safety concerns.
“We had before the court two applications-one for a writ of habeas corpus and the other for an interim injunction preventing repatriation. Unfortunately, the court adjourned the matter to this morning without granting interim relief. Over the weekend, the applicants were deported, and as such, our applications have become moot. This is precisely the injury we sought to prevent,” Barker-Vormawor told the court.
The eleven individuals include Nigerians Daniel Osas Aigbosa, Ahmed Animashaun, Ifeanyi Okechukwu, and Taiwo K. Lawson; Liberian national Kalu John; Togolese nationals Zito Yao Bruno and Agouda Richarla Oukpedzo Sikiratou; Gambian national Sidiben Dawda; and Malians Toure Dianke and Boubou Gassama.
According to the applicants, they were forcibly transported to Ghana without prior notice. They allege that they were secretly moved from the U.S detention centers between September 5 and 6 in shackles.
They want the court to temporarily stop them from being deported back to their home countries until the court decides on their case. Their submission further revealed that Ghanaian authorities allegedly confined them in a military facility.
They cited Article 14(1) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty, as well as Article 23, which protects the right to administrative justice.
They are arguing that Ghana is violating international law by trying to send them back to countries where their lives or freedom could be at risk.
As a result, they have demanded that the Attorney-General, the Chief of Defence Staff, and the Comptroller-General of the Ghana Immigration Service at the Human Rights Division of the High Court appear before the court with valid reasons.
During a media engagement at the Jubilee House, President John Dramani Mahama said that the batch consisted of 14 individuals, mostly Nigerians, along with one Gambian national.
“We were approached by the U.S. to accept third-country nationals who were being removed, and we agreed that West African nationals could be accommodated, since all our fellow West Africans do not require a visa to enter Ghana. So, if they travel from the U.S. to Accra, entry is not an issue. Bringing our West African colleagues back is therefore acceptable,” President Mahama explained.
President Mahama did not explicitly detail the deal of Ghana serving as a transit hub for West African nationals deported from the U.S. A federal judge, Judge Tanya Chutkan, has expressed concern that the arrangement suggested complicity on the part of the Ghanaian government in the deportation process.
But a federal judge, Judge Tanya Chutkan, expressed concern that the arrangement suggested complicity on the part of the Ghanaian government in the deportation process.
Judge Chutkan granted an emergency hearing after lawyers for the deportees argued that their clients expected to be returned to Nigeria and Gambia, and feared torture or persecution if sent home. She instructed the Trump administration to submit a report outlining measures to prevent Ghana from returning the deportees to their home countries.
According to her, concerns about their safety were not speculative but “real enough that the United States government agrees they shouldn’t be sent back to their home country.”Judge Chutkan described the arrangement as appearing to have been designed by U.S. officials “to make an end run” around legal requirements barring the government from deporting migrants to situations of danger.
The deportations, she noted, form part of President Donald Trump’s broader strategy of relocating migrants to “third countries” to expedite removals and pressure undocumented immigrants to leave the U.S.
It later emerged, following a lawsuit filed on Friday, September 12, by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Asian Americans Advancing Justice, that five of the nationals deported to Ghana had U.S. legal protections preventing deportation to their home countries. One of them, a bisexual man, was already sent to Gambia and is reportedly in hiding.
The others were held in an open-air facility managed by the Ghanaian military, which was described as having squalid conditions. The complaint alleged that the migrants were taken from a Louisiana detention facility, shackled, and flown on a U.S. military aircraft without being told their destination. Some were reportedly restrained in straitjackets for 16 hours.
The U.S. Department of Justice, responding to Judge Chutkan’s request, argued that it no longer had custody of the migrants and therefore the court lacked authority to interfere in matters of diplomacy. They cited a Supreme Court ruling allowing deportations to third countries.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin rejected the claim that straitjackets were used during the flight, but declined to comment on allegations of circumventing immigration law.
In January 2016, President Mahama welcomed two Yemeni nationals, Mahmud Umar Muhammad Bin Atef and Khalid Muhammed Salih Al-Dhuby, who had been detained at Guantanamo Bay for about 15 years. They were linked to Al-Qaeda activities, and their transfer to Ghana formed part of a bilateral agreement with the U.S.
The Mahama government explained that the move was a humanitarian gesture and that the two men would stay in Ghana for two years. However, the deal was never submitted to Parliament as required by the Constitution.
In June 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that the Gitmo 2 agreement was unconstitutional, ordering the government to present it to Parliament within three months or return the detainees to the U.S.
5 mins read
5 mins read
6 mins read
5 mins read
6 mins read
4 mins read
4 mins read
6 mins read
6 mins read