Eleven West African nationals deported from the US have withdrawn an ex parte injunction application they filed at the High Court against Ghana, seeking to challenge their repatriation.
The application, filed shortly before their removal from Ghana, was intended to halt the deportation process and compel the state to present the affected individuals in court to determine the legality of the action.
However, following their deportation, counsel for the group, Oliver Barker-Vormawor, told Citi News that his clients had no option but to discontinue the case at the Ghanaian court.
He expressed disappointment at what he described as deliberate delays within the country’s justice system.
He argued that the deportees were denied their fundamental rights to be heard and accused the state of undermining due process.
According to Barker-Vormawor, the group is now considering seeking redress at the ECOWAS Court of Justice in Abuja, Nigeria.
The eleven persons include Nigerians Daniel Osas Aigbosa, Ahmed Animashaun, Ifeanyi Okechukwu, and Taiwo K. Lawson; Liberian national Kalu John; Togolese nationals Zito Yao Bruno and Agouda Richarla Oukpedzo Sikiratou; Gambian national Sidiben Dawda; and Malians Toure Dianke and Boubou Gassama.
They have sued the Attorney-General, the Chief of Defence Staff, and the Comptroller-General of the Ghana Immigration Service at the Human Rights Division of the High Court, insisting their fundamental rights have been violated.
In affidavits supporting their case, the applicants claim they were secretly removed from U.S. detention centers between September 5 and 6, 2025, shackled, and forcibly transported to Ghana without prior notice or explanation.
Upon arrival, they allege, they were handed over to Ghanaian authorities and confined in what they believe to be a military facility without access to due process or judicial oversight.
The applicants argue that their detention breaches Article 14(1) of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty, as well as Article 23, which protects the right to administrative justice.
They further contend that the principle of non-refoulement—which prohibits sending refugees or asylum seekers back to countries where they risk persecution or torture—has been ignored.
