Editor’s Note: This explainer is published ahead of the November 12, 2025 Supreme Court hearing on the constitutionality of Ghana’s deportation agreement with the United States.
In mid-2025, Ghana entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on Repatriation and Temporary Hosting of West African Nationals with the US, to accept deportees and host certain West African nationals deported from the US, including individuals who may not be Ghanaian citizens. As of October 2025, 42 deportees were reportedly dropped off in neighbouring countries like Togo, Nigeria, raising human rights concerns over their treatment and legal status.
The US has pursued similar third-country deportation deals with other African nations including Eswatini, South Sudan, Rwanda, and Uganda.
The Ghanaian government did not submit the MoU to parliament prompting criticism from legal experts, opposition leaders and civil society groups. A disregard for constitutional supremacy or an exercise of executive powers?
What Does Ghana’s Constitution Say About International Agreements?
Article 75 of the Constitution 1992 stipulates that
(1) The President may execute or cause to be executed treaties, agreements or conventions in the name of Ghana.
(2) A treaty, agreement or convention executed by or under the authority of the President shall be subject to ratification by—
(a) Act of Parliament; or
(b) a resolution of Parliament supported by the votes of more than one-half of all the members of Parliament.
To wit, the president cannot unilaterally bind Ghana to international treaties, agreements or conventions. Before any treaty, agreement or convention takes effect, Parliament must approve it directly or pass a law that gives effect to it.
When does an instrument trigger Article 75 of the Constitution 1992?
To determine whether or not an instrument is an agreement to trigger Article 75 of the Constitution 1992, the case of Margaret Banful and Henry Nana Boakye vs. The Attorney General, the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice Sophia Akuffo, determined:
From the aforementioned principles of constitutional interpretation in Ghana there is no doubt that where, by various forms of documentation, the Government of Ghana binds the Republic of Ghana to certain obligations in relation to another country or group of countries, an international agreement comes into existence.
In the case stated above, the Supreme Court was called upon to interpret whether documents exchanged between the Governments of Ghana and the United States of America described as ‘Note Verbal’ is in the category of agreement contemplated by Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution, which therefore ought to have been submitted to Parliament for ratification. This Court relying on the same guides to the interpretation of the Constitution held that the ‘Note Verbal’ exchanged by the two States constituted an Agreement envisaged under Article 75 and as such needs Parliamentary ratification.
In many ways, the facts presented in the Banful case are similar to the current situation.
This view has been upheld in the recent case of Yaw Brogya Gyamfi vrs The Attorney General with majority judgement being delivered through Marful-Sau, JSC where he opined that the Defence Cooperation Agreement which was submitted by the Executive to Parliament though unsigned, was an agreement which created legal obligations between the Ghana and the US hence that which was only required was parliamentary ratification as provided for under Article 75 of the Constitution 1992.
Does the Ghana-US Deportee Agreement qualify under Article 75?
Though this is a matter of debate, my opinion based on extensive research is that the Ghana-US Deportee Agreement warrants the application of Article 75 of the Constitution 1992.
Per the principles established from the case laws cited above, there is a legal obligation imposed on the part of Ghana to the US. Ghana binds herself to receive and temporarily host certain West African deportees and resettle these persons. Therefore, there happens to be a breach of procedure as the president failed to present this agreement to parliament for ratification.
How Has the Government Responded to Constitutional Concerns?
The Ghanaian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Hon. Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa defended Ghana’s deportation agreement with the US by citing pan-African solidarity and humanitarian principles, explicitly denying financial gain or transactional motive. At the Government Accountability Series held in Accra on September 15, 2025, he stated that
“Ghana has not received and does not seek any financial compensation or material benefit in relation to this understanding. Our involvement is purely by humanitarian principles and pan-African solidarity, not transactional interests.”
He also clarified that the arrangement is a MoU, not a binding treaty. He emphasized that Ghana retains the right to independently vet each deportee’s background before acceptance.
What Legal Action Has Been Taken Against the Government?
Democracy Hub, a civil society group led by activist and lawyer Oliver Barker-Vormawor, filed a petition to Ghana’s Supreme Court challenging the legality of the government’s agreement with the US to accept deportees. The group argues the agreement violates Article 75 of the Constitution 1992 due to lack of parliamentary ratification. The group is also seeking an interlocutory injunction to halt implementation of the agreement until the case is resolved. A hearing was slated for October 22, 2025 but due to the failure of the Office of the Attorney General and Ministry of Justice to respond to the application filed by the group, the Supreme Court adjourned the case to November 12, 2025. The Attorney General was given within two weeks to react to the application.
