Ghana sued over Trump deportation deal in ECOWAS court case

A coalition of organisations has filed a landmark lawsuit before the ECOWAS Court over Accra’s role in a secret US deportation deal that could set new legal limits on Africa’s migration cooperation with Washington.

Ghana has become the latest African country to face legal action over the Donald Trump administration’s expanding strategy of outsourcing deportations beyond US borders.

A coalition of rights groups Monday filed a landmark lawsuit before the ECOWAS Court of Justice, accusing the West African nation of unlawfully receiving, detaining and deporting refugees and other protected migrants transferred from the US under a secret bilateral agreement.

The case, brought on behalf of 27 individuals, could so far become one of the most significant legal challenges to Washington’s growing use of African countries as partners in its immigration crackdown.

But within days or even hours of arriving in Ghana, the lawsuit alleges, many were placed on flights or otherwise forcibly returned to the very countries from which they had fled. Others were reportedly left stranded elsewhere in West Africa without legal status, money or support.

“Ghana cannot become a mechanism through which people are transferred from one jurisdiction to another without meaningful consideration of the dangers they face,” said Oliver Barker-Vormawor, senior partner at Merton & Everett LLP.

The claimants also describe harsh treatment during their removal from the US, alleging they were shackled, restrained and, in some cases, assaulted during deportation flights.

Upon arrival in Ghana, they say they were detained under armed guard in military facilities, airport holding cells and hotels before being deported again. Some reported poor living conditions, inadequate healthcare and threats from security personnel. At least one detainee allegedly attempted suicide while being held in a military camp.

Medical and psychological assessments conducted by Physicians for Human Rights documented evidence consistent with severe trauma, including post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, according to the lawsuit.

Trump’s Africa strategy

The lawsuit lands as the Trump administration increasingly looks beyond US borders to implement one of its signature political priorities: mass deportations. Where direct returns prove legally or diplomatically difficult, Washington has sought agreements with third countries willing to receive deportees before facilitating their onward removal.

For critics, this represents the internationalisation of US immigration enforcement. Rather than deporting people directly to countries where American courts have ruled they may face persecution, they argue, Washington is relying on partner governments to carry out the final stage of the process.

Ghana is not alone. Similar third-country arrangements involving Equatorial Guinea and Eswatini have already provoked legal challenges and political controversy. Human rights organisations say the Ghana case forms part of a broader effort to challenge what they describe as a growing system of “chain refoulement” across Africa.

The allegations also carry diplomatic sensitivity. According to the lawsuit, Ghanaian officials linked the agreement with Washington to the lifting of US visa restrictions imposed on the country. If proven, that would place migration cooperation at the centre of a broader diplomatic bargain between Accra and Washington.

The legal battle

The case is believed to be the first brought under the 1979 ECOWAS Free Movement Protocol, giving it significance beyond Ghana.

According to the lawyers, Accra wrongly relied on a regional treaty designed to facilitate the movement of West African citizens to justify detaining and deporting people who had already been recognised by US courts as requiring international protection.

At the centre of the case is the principle of non-refoulement, a cornerstone of international refugee law that prohibits governments from returning people to countries where they face persecution, torture or other serious harm.

The lawsuit argues Ghana breached that obligation both directly, by facilitating deportations to unsafe countries, and indirectly, by participating in a US-led system that transferred protected migrants through a third country before returning them to places where they were allegedly at risk.

The claimants are asking the ECOWAS Court to suspend further transfers under the agreement, compel Ghana to disclose its terms, award compensation and rehabilitation to those affected, and prohibit the government from entering similar arrangements in future.

 Lawyers behind the case say a ruling could have implications beyond Ghana by clarifying how far ECOWAS member states can cooperate with third-country deportation agreements.

“This case could establish an important regional and international principle — that the ECOWAS free movement regime cannot launder US legal abuses or excuse chain refoulement,” said Ian M. Kysel, associate clinical professor at Cornell Law School and director of the Transnational Disputes Clinic.

Beatrice Njeri, regional litigator for Africa at the Global Strategic Litigation Council, says migration cooperation cannot come at the expense of refugee protection or international law.

Agreements that externalise asylum and migration responsibilities to third countries carry a high risk of human rights abuses, she tells The Africa Report.

“In our work to challenge these agreements across Africa and beyond, we have seen people detained in terrible conditions, denied meaningful access to lawyers, medical care and their loved ones, and in many cases returned to countries where they face persecution, torture or even death.”