BY Issah Olegor
The Minority in Parliament has taken strong exception to President John Dramani Mahama’s decision to accept deportees from the United States, accusing the government of breaching constitutional requirements and endangering Ghana’s sovereignty and international standing.
The uproar follows confirmation from President Mahama that Ghana had entered into an arrangement with Washington to serve as a temporary receiving point for West African nationals expelled from the U.S.
As part of the deal, 14 deportees — including Nigerians and a Gambian — have already been received in Ghana before being assisted to return to their respective countries.
The Nigerians were transported home by bus, while arrangements were still underway for the Gambian.
This is similar to Mahama’s unilateral acceptance of two Yemeni Gitmo terrorists housed by his administration during his first term in office.
The Yemenis sent from the US have since been integrated into the Ghanaian society having taken wives here in Ghana.
Minority Raises Constitutional Concerns
The Minority caucus on the Foreign Affairs Committee of Parliament argues that the agreement with the U.S. constitutes an international treaty and should, under Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution, have been laid before Parliament for approval.
In a statement signed by Samuel Abu Jinapor, Ranking Member on the committee, the caucus cited Supreme Court precedents, including Banful v Attorney General and Brogya Gyamfi v Attorney-General, which affirmed that all international agreements, whether formally signed or concluded through diplomatic notes, must be ratified by Parliament.
“It is therefore surprising that the current government, whose previous actions in 2016 led to landmark Supreme Court decisions, would blatantly defy the constitutional provision and go ahead to operationalize this agreement,” the statement read.
Echoes Of the Gitmo Two Saga
The development has revived memories of the 2016 controversy in which the Mahama administration admitted two Yemeni terror suspects, Mohammed Al-Dhuby and Mohammed Bin-Atef, who had been held in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay for 14 years.
That decision was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court for bypassing parliamentary ratification, sparking a nationwide debate over executive overreach.
The Minority insists that the current move amounts to a repeat of the same constitutional violation, warning that it undermines the rule of law and sets a dangerous precedent.
Security and Sovereignty Questions
Beyond constitutional issues, the Minority has also flagged national security and sovereignty concerns.
They argue that while Ghana is committed to ECOWAS principles of free movement, these protocols apply only to voluntary travel within the subregion, not to forced deportations orchestrated by an external power such as the United States.
They further cautioned that the agreement risks compromising Ghana’s international reputation. “To associate Ghana with the U.S. government’s current immigration enforcement regime — widely criticized as harsh and discriminatory — could have several negative implications for our country,” the caucus warned.
Mahama’s Defence
President Mahama has defended the decision, arguing that it is consistent with ECOWAS protocols that allow West Africans to travel freely within the region for up to 90 days without visas.
“All our fellow West African nationals don’t need visas to come to our country,” he explained.
He also suggested that Ghana was approached by the U.S. as part of a broader strategy to manage deportations from its soil, and that the arrangement was not unusual.
Call for Transparency
The Minority has demanded that government disclose when the agreement was signed, the processes followed, and whether Parliament was consulted at any stage.
They also want details of security safeguards and policies regarding how such deportees will be handled to protect Ghana’s interests.
They have called for the immediate suspension of the agreement until Parliament has exercised its constitutional mandate.
“We will continue to hold government accountable in the conduct of foreign policy and in all matters affecting the welfare and sovereignty of our people,” the caucus concluded.
The standoff sets the stage for yet another constitutional test in Ghana’s foreign policy, reopening old wounds from the Gitmo Two saga and raising questions about executive discretion, parliamentary oversight, and the balance between national security and international diplomacy.
