The Member of Parliament for Oforikrom, Michael Kwasi Aidoo, has raised concerns over a reported agreement between the Government of Ghana and the United States to admit deportees described as West African nationals into the country.
President John Dramani Mahama, during a media encounter at Jubilee House on Wednesday, September 10, confirmed that 14 deportees, including Nigerians and one Gambian, had been received in Ghana as part of an agreement with the U.S.
He explained that Ghana had no objection to receiving citizens of fellow ECOWAS member states due to the Protocol on Free Movement, which permits West African nationals to enter and reside in other member countries for up to 90 days without a visa.
In a statement issued on Friday, September 12, the MP argued that President John Dramani Mahama’s claim that Ghana is only receiving West African nationals is misleading. He said the identities and citizenship of many of the deportees remain unverified, with neither Nigeria nor The Gambia confirming them as their citizens.
Mr. Aidoo also accused the government of bypassing established international deportation protocols, which require evidence of nationality and acknowledgment by the receiving country before any transfer is made. He said Ghana’s decision to accept the deportees raises questions of legality, sovereignty, and transparency.
Citing Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution, the lawmaker stressed that no treaty or agreement has legal force unless ratified by Parliament. He recalled a 2017 Supreme Court ruling which declared similar executive actions unconstitutional when Parliament was bypassed.
“Unless this new deportation agreement is laid before Parliament and ratified, it is unlawful and of no binding force,” he warned.
Mr. Aidoo further questioned what Ghana might have received in exchange for agreeing to the deal, suggesting that the move undermines the country’s sovereignty and contradicts the African Union’s position against using member states as “receptacles for unwanted migrants.”
He urged the government to publish the full details of the agreement, subject it to parliamentary scrutiny, and provide clarity on the status of the deportees.
Read below the statement by Michael Kwasi Aidoo, MP- Oforikrom:
Why President Mahama’s Claim of Accepting Only West African Nationals Deportees from the U.S. into Ghana Is Deceptive
On several grounds, the recent agreement reportedly signed by President Mahama with the U.S. government under which Ghana has undertaken to receive criminal deportees misrepresents both the true status of those being returned and the country’s constitutional requirements.
1. Unilateral Executive Deal-making
At a point, where many countries in Africa have unanimously rejected the U.S government’s plans to deport migrants with criminal records from the U.S., Ghana’s President Mahama has necodemously negotiated a deal with the U.S. to accept deportees into Ghana, using Ghana as dumping site for U.S. unwanted migrants with criminal records including drug trafficking and other serious offenses.
2. False West African Identity
The President’s assertion that these deportees are all West African nationals are untrue. They are criminals that no country in West Africa and no embassy in the region has stepped forward to confirm their citizenship. If they were bona fide nationals of Nigeria, Sierra Leone, or any other West African state, their governments would surely claim them directly.
3. Established Deportation Protocols Ignored
Under international practice, a sending state must notify the receiving state and furnish evidence of each individual’s nationality. The receiving state then conducts its own verification before permitting the transfer. In this case, Ghana appears to have ignored or waived that process.
4. Embassies Must Acknowledge Their Citizens
Every West African country maintains a diplomatic mission in Washington, D.C., and a permanent representative in New York. So how come these embassies whose nationals are to be deported into Ghana are not accepting their own citizens? If the President’s office truly means to “facilitate their return,” it must explain why these embassies have refused to identify their nationals. This is where the hidden lie and the untruths are. The president is not telling the nation the truths.
5. Recent Arrivals Contradict Official Lines
The government claims that 14 deportees have already arrived, 13 Nigerians and one Gambian. Why did neither the Nigerian Embassy and its government nor the Gambian authorities in Washington approve these returns? Their refusal strongly suggests that Ghana’s assertion of West African nationality is unfounded. The fact that Nigeria Government is not accepting the deportees mean the Nigeria Government has not established that they are their citizens.
6. Who, Then, Are They?
If Nigeria and Gambia have not confirmed these individuals as their citizens, on what basis did Ghana proceed to admit them? The answer appears to be: no sound legal basis at all.
7. Breach of African Union Principles
The African Union has condemned the use of any Member State as a receptacle for unwanted migrants, especially where human rights abuses are alleged by the deporting power. The Trump administration’s harsh treatment of African-descent migrants only underscores the injustice of this deal.
8. What Was Offered in Exchange?
The Government must disclose what concessions were made to secure this “re-admission” agreement. Were any trade, security, or visa-facilitation incentives promised to the U.S.?
9. A Sovereignty Under Question
This pact has arisen at precisely the moment when U.S. aid to Ghana is under suspension, visa restrictions have tightened, and new tariffs of over 15% have been imposed on Ghana’s exports. Other African states including those personally courted by President Trump have spurned this proposal. Why did Ghana alone agree? When those countries that the U.S president held summit with rejected the offer? Why Ghana?
Why are we selling our sovereignty in exchange of favours that the president alone and his government are aware. Why is it only President Mahama’s time that deals to harbour criminals are entered? These and many other questions are what the government has to address.
10. Constitutional Illegality of the Deal
Under Article 75 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, “No treaty shall have the force of law unless it has been ratified by Parliament.” In the landmark case of
• Republic v. Attorney-General & Others (SC Application No. J1/37/2016, judgment delivered 5 July 2017)
the Supreme Court held (at paragraph 44) that
“The Executive cannot commit the State to any significant international agreement affecting fundamental rights or obligations without the prior approval of Parliament, as required by Article 75. To do otherwise is ultra vires the Constitution.”
Unless this new deportation agreement is laid before Parliament and expressly ratified by the requisite two-thirds majority, it is unlawful and of no binding force.
In sum, the President’s claim that Ghana is merely accepting “West African nationals” is demonstrably false. Moreover, by bypassing Parliament, the President has acted contrary to the Supreme Court’s clear ruling on such matters. We call on President Mahama to publish the full agreement, submit it for parliamentary scrutiny, and correct the record, failing which this “secret deal” must be abandoned in order to uphold Ghana’s Constitution and national dignity.
Michael Kwasi Aidoo, MP- Oforikrom
Shalom.
…..
Explore the world of impactful news with CitiNewsroom on WhatsApp!
Click on the link to join the Citi Newsroom channel for curated, meaningful stories tailored just for YOU:
https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaCYzPRAYlUPudDDe53x
No spam, just the stories that truly matter! #StayInformed #CitiNewsroom #CNRDigital
