The Minority in Parliament has intensified calls for the immediate suspension of the government’s new deportee agreement with the United States, describing it as unconstitutional, a threat to national security, and a departure from Ghana’s long-standing foreign policy principles.
At a media briefing on Wednesday, September 24, 2025, the Ranking Member on the Foreign Affairs Committee, Samuel Abu Jinapor, said the agreement, under which Ghana will serve as a reception point for West African nationals deported from the United States, has not been presented to Parliament for ratification as required by Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution.
Article 75 states 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.”
“We therefore reiterate our call on the government to suspend, with immediate effect, the unconstitutional implementation of this agreement until Parliament has duly exercised its constitutional mandate to ratify the same,” Jinapor declared.
Constitutional and legal objections
The Minority argues that the agreement constitutes an international arrangement that must be ratified by Parliament before it can take effect. They cited a series of Supreme Court decisions, including the landmark Banful v. Attorney-General ruling on the Guantánamo Bay detainee case in 2016, which held that all agreements or memoranda with foreign states — regardless of their form — require parliamentary approval.
“The attempts by the minister to downplay this agreement in the face of this clear provision of the Constitution are very disturbing,” Jinapor warned, referencing recent comments by the Foreign Affairs Minister that the deal is merely a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and therefore falls within the executive’s mandate.
The Minority also highlighted past precedents where similar arrangements were presented to Parliament even before they were signed, underscoring the constitutional requirement for legislative oversight on matters involving foreign governments.
Security and human rights concerns
Beyond the constitutional issues, the Minority raised national security and human rights concerns about accepting deportees who may have no legal or cultural ties to Ghana. Jinapor questioned the safeguards in place to protect Ghanaian citizens and prevent the country from becoming a “dumping ground” for migrants rejected by the United States.
“We urge the government to provide full clarity on the processes, safeguards, and other broader implications associated with receiving these deportees, including the measures, if any, that have been taken to protect Ghana’s security interests,” he said.
According to the Minority, some of the deportees are already being held in detention in Ghana, with reports of legal action initiated by some individuals over alleged breaches of their fundamental rights. They further disclosed that 40 more deportees are expected in the coming weeks, heightening fears over Ghana’s preparedness to manage the arrivals.
Foreign policy and diplomatic implications
The Minority also expressed concern that the arrangement risks damaging Ghana’s international image as a neutral and principled actor in global diplomacy. Ghana has long maintained a policy of non-alignment and regional solidarity, but the new agreement could be interpreted as aligning the country with the U.S. government’s controversial immigration enforcement policies.
“While regional integration remains a core value of our foreign policy, it cannot be stretched to justify the forced reception of foreign nationals deported from other countries,” the Minority stressed, warning that such a move could set a troubling precedent within the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
Government’s position
Foreign Affairs Minister Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa has defended the deal, insisting it is an MoU and not a binding treaty, and therefore does not require parliamentary ratification. He maintains that the arrangement falls within the constitutional powers of the Executive and has been properly reviewed by the Attorney-General’s office.
However, the Minority dismissed this position, noting that Ghana’s Constitution makes no distinction between treaties and MoUs once they create obligations between states.
A call for immediate action
The Minority concluded by warning that continuing to implement the agreement without parliamentary approval is a “direct violation of the Constitution and an affront to the authority of the Supreme Court.” They urged the government to suspend all operations under the deal until Parliament debates and ratifies it and to provide a full briefing on the legal, security, and humanitarian safeguards attached to the arrangement.
The development echoes the 2016 Guantánamo Bay detainee controversy, when a similar agreement with the United States sparked a nationwide debate over constitutional compliance and national security.
Read Also >>> 11 deported African nationals sue Ghana for alleged unlawful detention; Court to hear application on September 23
Meanwhile, former Minister for Lands and Natural Resources and Member of Parliament for Damongo, Samuel Abu Jinapor, has cautioned the government against taking sides in the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, warning that recent comments by the Foreign Affairs Ministry could “undermine Ghana’s long-standing foreign policy of non-alignment.”
Speaking on behalf of the Minority at a press conference on Wednesday, 24 September 2025, Mr Abu Jinapor said Ghana’s neutrality had been a cornerstone of its foreign policy since independence and must be preserved.
“Ghana has always maintained a respected foreign policy tradition. As President Nkrumah once said, ‘We do not look left or right, we look forward.’ That is why we have remained non-aligned since 1957,” he said.
He criticized the Foreign Minister’s recent comments describing Israel’s actions in Gaza as “genocidal,” arguing that such statements suggest Ghana is “taking sides” in the conflict.
“When the chief diplomat of our country makes comments that are extreme, declaratory, one-sided, or partial, it risks compromising Ghana’s time-tested foreign policy,” he explained. “We must not appear to align with Palestine against Israel, nor with Israel against Palestine. We must remain impartial.”
Mr Jinapor stressed that Ghana’s neutral stance has enabled it to play a respected role in peace-building and diplomacy over the years. “It is because of our non-aligned nature that Ghana has been a leading and trusted voice in global peace efforts,” he said.
When asked whether previous government comments on the Russia-Ukraine war also undermined non-alignment, Mr Jinapor responded: “That is a conversation worth having. If it was wrong then, it is still wrong today. Wrong yesterday, wrong today, and wrong tomorrow.”
He concluded by urging the government to “refrain from statements that appear to compromise Ghana’s neutrality” and to “restore the country’s foreign policy posture as a bridge-builder and impartial actor on the global stage.”