In a rare diplomatic intervention, the United Nations human rights office has called on Ghana to immediately halt the deportation of five migrants recently sent there from the United States—individuals who held U.S. court-ordered protections against return to their home countries due to credible fears of torture or death .
What Happened: A Timeline of the Deportation Crisis
Five migrants deported from U.S. to Ghana on military cargo plane
Migrants reported held in remote Dema Camp, Ghana
U.N. Committee Against Torture issues formal request
Details made public by The New York Times
The deportees—whose identities are protected but include a bisexual man from Gambia and a Nigerian man who survived police torture—were sent to Ghana under a controversial “third-country” deportation agreement. Despite having legal protections under U.S. immigration law, they were allegedly flown out in the middle of the night, shackled and in some cases placed in straitjackets for up to 16 hours .
How Third-Country Deportations Work
| Step | Description |
|---|---|
| 1. Target Identification | U.S. identifies migrants with removal orders but protected from home country return |
| 2. Third-Country Deal | Negotiates with nations like Ghana, Rwanda, or Uganda to accept deportees |
| 3. Secret Transfer | Migrants flown without notice to legal counsel or family |
| 4. Re-deportation Risk | Host country may later send migrants to their original (dangerous) home nations |
International Law at Stake
Both the U.S. and Ghana are signatories to the Convention Against Torture (CAT), which prohibits returning individuals to places where they face a real risk of torture. The U.N. Committee Against Torture argues that deporting protected individuals—even via a third country—violates this treaty .
“Diplomatic assurances are not enough when lives are on the line,” said Gianna Borroto, attorney for the deportees.
U.S. Court Response
U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan condemned the Trump administration’s actions as a “deliberate circumvention” of judicial protections but ruled she lacked jurisdiction once the migrants left U.S. soil .
This mirrors a June 2025 Supreme Court decision that allowed deportations to South Sudan from a U.S. base in Djibouti—setting a troubling precedent for bypassing due process .
Current Status of the Deportees
- K.S. (Gambia): Already deported from Ghana to Gambia; in hiding due to anti-LGBTQ+ laws
- D.A. (Nigeria): Held at undisclosed Dema Camp; reports lasting physical injury from straitjacket
- Three others: Location unknown as of September 26; lawyers fear imminent re-deportation
Broader Implications
Human rights advocates warn that if Ghana complies with the U.N. request, it could deter other African nations from entering similar deportation deals with the U.S.
“This should serve as a stark warning to other African nations considering entering into similar agreements,” Borroto stated .
For more on U.S. immigration enforcement and international human rights law, see our explainer on [INTERNAL_LINK:third-country-deportation-policies].
The case underscores growing tensions between national sovereignty, executive power, and global human rights obligations. As the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights emphasizes, “No country can outsource its duty to protect the vulnerable” .
Sources
- https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/26/us/politics/migrants-ghana-deportations.html
- https://www.ohchr.org/
- https://www.un.org/treaty/CAT
- https://www.aclu.org/issues/immigrants-rights
