Dispute over third-country transfers tests sovereignty and transparency

Ghanaian officials insist a group of 14 African migrants deported by the United States have already been sent to their home countries, pushing back against lawyers who say at least four Nigerian men remain held in Ghana. Presidential spokesperson Felix Kwakye Ofosu said one Gambian flew home and 13 Nigerians were transported by bus, while denying any knowledge of a holding facility in Ghana. Attorneys for four of the Nigerians filed court papers asserting their clients are still detained. The Associated Press could not independently verify the Nigerians’ whereabouts, though a separate lawyer confirmed the Gambian national is back in Gambia. Officials in Nigeria and Gambia said they were not notified in advance.

A legal skirmish with policy consequences

In Washington, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan declined to halt the removals, saying her hands are tied, even as she criticized the administration’s approach to the U.N. Convention Against Torture. The ruling allows the transfer of 14 West Africans from Ghana to Nigeria and Gambia, despite prior findings by U.S. immigration judges that some faced persecution if returned to their home countries. For the administration, third-country transfers are a lawful tool to enforce final removal orders when direct returns are barred, a stance that just scored a courtroom win over ACLU-led litigation. The broader policy question is whether such transfers can balance enforcement with due process without turning into an accountability black hole.

Accusations, denials and a fog of process

The lawsuit alleges deportees were restrained for 16 hours and later held in squalid conditions, accusations Ghana rejects. Ofosu said no deportee is being held in any camp and no rights are being abused. Ghana’s foreign minister said Accra took no U.S. financial inducement and is limiting intake to West Africans, as Ghana joins Eswatini, Rwanda and South Sudan in receiving third-country deportees. Nigeria’s foreign ministry said it was not briefed and reiterated it will not accept non-Nigerians. With AP unable to verify the Nigerians’ location, the dispute turns on who controls custody and who is accountable at each handoff.

Security first, with accountability

Border enforcement and national sovereignty require credible removal mechanisms, including third-country options when home-country returns are unsafe or blocked. But limited government also demands clear rules and transparency. DHS should publish the contours of its transfer agreements and provide timely notifications to destination governments. Ghana should allow independent access to any holding sites and document each transfer with chain-of-custody records. That mix of firm enforcement and verifiable oversight protects both citizens and bona fide asylum claims from being exploited by smugglers or muddied by political theater.

What to watch next

Key tests now include whether courts demand tighter guardrails on third-country transfers, if independent observers can verify the Nigerians’ status, how Nigeria responds to future notifications, and whether the U.S. expands similar arrangements elsewhere in Africa. The answers will shape whether third-country removals become a durable instrument of immigration control or a flashpoint that invites more litigation and less trust.