The Supreme Court of Ghana has ordered the Attorney General’s office to produce the full agreement between Ghana and the United States regarding the deportation of West African nationals to Ghana.
The ruling, delivered on February 11, 2026, forms part of a high-profile case filed by pressure group Democracy Hub, which is challenging the constitutionality of the migration deal.
The Court directed the Attorney General to provide the document for private (in-camera) inspection by lawyers representing Democracy Hub.
Speaking to reporters outside the court on February 11, lead counsel for Democracy Hub, Oliver Barker-Vormawor, described the development as encouraging.
“It’s a balanced approach. We understand that the court is protective of National security considerations for which reason it has asked that we view the documents in private.”
He indicated that the group remains focused on ensuring transparency in the process and may take further steps depending on what is uncovered after reviewing the agreement.
“As far as we’re concerned it adds another resolve to our step in ensuring that there’s full transparency into the process. I hope after this process and once we inspect it, if there’s a need that we challenge the restrictiveness of the document in the public interest, that’s something that we’ll take up that step afterwards.”
Barker-Vormawor stressed that Democracy Hub’s action is rooted in the belief that citizens must have oversight over government decisions.
“We are committed that, the people of Ghana to whom the democracy belongs to, can audit the steps of government all the time.”
He further revealed that the group had previously sought access to the agreement through a Right to Information request.
“We have in fact filed for right to information request at the presidency. The presidency claims that they did not have a copy of it and that we should speak to the Ministry of foreign affairs. We have spoken to them, till date they have not complied with the request.”
Describing the court’s directive as significant, he added, “As far as we’re concerned this is a positive step that reinforces the argument we’re making before the court.”
He also noted that the Attorney General had argued that the deportation agreement did not require parliamentary ratification; an issue Democracy Hub intends to scrutinise closely.
“As the court already mentioned, the Attorney General has made an argument that they’re not required for parliament to ratify this. This is something that we’re interested in exploring even further and hopefully it helps us better frame the argument and our challenge before the court.”
Background to the Case
Democracy Hub is in court to challenge the legality and constitutionality of the migration agreement between Ghana and the United States. The group is pursuing 28 reliefs based on several core arguments.
It argues that the government violated Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution by implementing the agreement without submitting it to Parliament for approval.
The group is also contesting the detention of deportees at the Bundase Military Training Camp, arguing that holding civilians in military facilities without charge violates constitutional rights to liberty and dignity.
Additionally, Democracy Hub maintains that the agreement lacked transparency, describing it as having been implemented without proper public disclosure or parliamentary approval.
The case is being heard by a five-member panel presided over by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang.
