Civil society group Democracy Hub has filed a writ at the Supreme Court of Ghana seeking to restrain the government from implementing a purported agreement with the United States of America to receive or detain involuntarily repatriated West African nationals on Ghanaian soil.
The suit, brought under Articles 2(1)(b) and 130(1) of the 1992 Constitution, invokes the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to determine whether the alleged Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the two governments was constitutional.
In its statement of claim, Democracy Hub contends that any such arrangement “constitutes an international agreement” under Article 75 of the Constitution and therefore required prior ratification by Parliament before implementation. The group argues that the President’s decision to act on the purported MoU without parliamentary approval is “unconstitutional, void, and of no legal effect.”
Among its 28 reliefs, Democracy Hub seeks several declarations and orders, including:
A ruling that the alleged MoU or any similar agreement to receive, detain, or transfer U.S.-deported migrants is unconstitutional without parliamentary ratification.
An injunction directing the Government to “cease and desist” from implementing or relying on the said agreement.
A declaration that the deal violates Ghana’s international obligations, including the 1951 Refugee Convention, the 1967 Protocol, and the OAU Convention on Refugee Protection.
The plaintiff also claims that the arrangement breaches the peremptory norm of non-refoulement, which prohibits returning individuals to countries where they may face persecution or torture.
“The President cannot, on his own authority, enter into or implement agreements that have international legal implications without the consent of Parliament,” Democracy Hub stated in its filing. “This is a direct violation of Article 75 and undermines the rule of law and democratic accountability in Ghana.”
The Attorney General and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are named as first and second defendants, respectively. They have been given 14 days to respond to the suit.
