Eleven West African migrants deported to Ghana despite safety concerns, lawyer says

Eleven West African nationals deported by the United States to Ghana over the weekend were sent to their home countries despite safety concerns, a lawyer for the migrants told a court in Accra on Tuesday. The migrants’ legal team said the group had been considered at risk of torture, persecution or inhumane treatment, and that their rights to asylum protections should have been weighed before removal.

The United States had deported a total of 14 West African immigrants to Ghana under controversial circumstances, sparking criticism from human rights advocates who argue that international protections for asylum-seekers must be respected and that proper screening procedures are essential before removal. Ghanaian authorities had previously said all deportees had been sent home, but the migrants and their lawyers later told The Associated Press that 11 of them were still at a military facility in Ghana. The 11 sued the Ghanaian government last week seeking their release, arguing that their rights were not adequately protected during removal.

The group was composed of four Nigerians, three Togolese, two Malians, and one each from Gambia and Liberia, according to court documents reviewed by the AP. The lawyers have stressed that eight of the 11 had indicated in earlier proceedings that they possessed legal protections against deportation to their home countries due to the risk of harm abroad. Their lawyer, Oliver Barker-Vormawo, told the court that the individuals were deported over the weekend, rendering the pending suit moot in his view and underscoring what he described as an additional injury to their safety.

The evolving case sits at the intersection of U.S. migration policy and Africa’s reception of migrants, highlighting a broader push by the Trump administration to deter unauthorized entry and to remove those who cannot be easily returned to their countries of origin. Critics have argued that the administration’s approach relies on expedited removals and third-country arrangements that may bypass robust screening for asylum claims. The administration has contended that it retains broad authority over its immigration and removal processes and that third-country agreements can help manage flows more effectively.

In recent months, U.S. officials have increasingly used third-country deals to address cases where direct returns to home countries are legally complicated or blocked by court rulings. Ghana has joined Eswatini, Rwanda and South Sudan in receiving migrants deported from the United States under such arrangements, according to the agreements cited by lawmakers and rights groups familiar with the matter. The U.S. Department of Justice has argued in federal court that it cannot control how another country handles deportees and that Ghana had pledged not to repatriate the individuals to their home countries, a claim that has been contested by migrant advocates and legal representatives involved in the case.

The disputes over the fate of these migrants underscores ongoing tensions over how to balance border enforcement with international protection obligations. Rights groups have warned that migrants removed from the United States can face dangers that contravene established human rights norms, including torture, persecution and inhumane treatment, if due process and adequate risk assessments are not observed.

As the court cases unfold, the migrants’ legal team is pursuing relief tied to protections they say should have shielded them from deportation in the first place. The Ghanaian government has not publicly stated a position beyond the earlier declarations that the individuals had been sent back to their home countries, though the new development suggests continued legal and humanitarian questions about the circumstances surrounding these removals. The situation remains fluid as authorities in both countries review the actions taken and assess the appropriate steps for the individuals involved.

The case has drawn attention to the broader implications of U.S. deportation policies for migrants and for countries that become hosts of those deported. It also raises questions about the adequacy of screening, the timeliness and accessibility of protections for asylum-seekers, and the responsibilities of sending and receiving nations when rights concerns are raised. The participating parties have urged courts to consider not only the legality of removals but the real-world safety and well-being of people who may be sent to places where they could face significant harm.

As the legal process continues, observers say the outcome could influence how similar cases are handled in the future, including how swiftly courts can adjudicate claims that deportees face risk upon return and how much weight is given to evidence of potential harm in the destination country. For the migrants themselves, the immediate priority remains securing a safe resolution that respects their rights and protects them from exposure to danger—a goal that activist organizations and international observers say should guide any policy that involves removing people from one country to another.