Ghana has become the latest African state to receive third-country nationals deported from the United States, joining Eswatini, Rwanda, and South Sudan in a growing list of nations cooperating with Washington on deportation arrangements. Uganda has also signed an agreement with the United States, although it has yet to receive deportees. The policy has sparked significant scrutiny from legal scholars and human rights advocates, who question its compliance with international law.
Earlier this month, 14 deportees—13 Nigerian nationals and one Gambian—arrived unexpectedly in Accra. Ghanaian officials confirmed the group had since departed for their respective home countries, though lawyers for four of the men insisted they remained detained. The deportees were reportedly placed on a U.S. military cargo plane in the early hours of 5 September without prior notice of their destination, according to documents filed in U.S. courts.
Ghana’s Foreign Minister, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, defended the decision as a humanitarian gesture, citing regional solidarity. “We just could not continue to take the suffering of our fellow West Africans,” he stated, emphasising that Ghana intervened after other states in the region declined to host the individuals. Authorities framed the acceptance of the deportees as consistent with Ghana’s Pan-African commitments, while limiting such cooperation strictly to West African nationals.
Nigeria’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed concern, noting it had not been informed by either the U.S. or Ghana about the deportation. Spokesperson Kimebi Imomotimi Ebienfa reiterated that Nigeria had not opposed the repatriation of its citizens directly from the United States but rejected the transfer of nationals from other states.
Similar arrangements have emerged elsewhere. In Latin America, the United States has transferred Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, while agreements with Costa Rica and Panama have seen the reception of migrants from diverse countries, including Afghanistan, Russia, China and Iran. Last month, Paraguay also concluded a third-country agreement with Washington, while Mexico, though not formally party to such a deal, has accepted deportees from across the Western Hemisphere, including Cuba and Haiti.
Critics argue that these practices raise profound ethical and legal concerns. International human rights lawyers have pointed to obligations under conventions that protect asylum-seekers from refoulement—the forced return to countries where they face persecution or torture. Maureen A. Sweeney, a professor of law at the University of Maryland, described the U.S. programme as “a clear violation of the duties both countries have to protect the migrants amid such risks,” warning that deporting individuals under existing legal prohibitions undermines the rule of law.
Civil society organisations have further raised alarm over the conditions of removal and detention. A lawsuit filed in the United States alleged that deportees transported to Ghana were restrained in “straitjackets” for 16 hours and detained in “abysmal and deplorable” conditions upon arrival. Ghanaian officials have rejected claims regarding detention standards and stated that they were unaware of the specifics of the individuals’ treatment during transfer.
Observers note that African states agreeing to such arrangements often face difficult geopolitical choices. Cooperation with the United States on deportations may strengthen bargaining positions in negotiations on trade, aid, and security. Yet critics argue this willingness comes at the expense of safeguarding human rights, particularly given that many of the states involved—such as Rwanda, South Sudan, and Eswatini—have been criticised for their domestic human rights records.
The broader trend situates Africa within a complex global migration regime in which powerful states externalise border enforcement to regions least equipped to bear the humanitarian burden. While host states invoke pan-African solidarity or humanitarian duty, critics caution that such narratives risk obscuring deeper structural inequalities in global migration governance.
As the programme expands into both African and Latin American contexts, the challenge for the continent remains how to reconcile diplomatic pragmatism with a principled commitment to human rights protections, while ensuring that African states are not relegated to passive recipients of externalised migration policies devised elsewhere.
