Minister for Foreign Affairs and Regional Integration, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, has responded to reports from international media regarding the deportation of a Salvadoran named Abrego Garcia from the United States to Ghana.
On Friday, October 10, 2025, various international media outlets reported that the United States Department of Homeland Security announced its intention to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Ghana. This was indicated in a notice sent to his attorneys by the agency.
Previously, DHS had stated its plans to deport Abrego Garcia. He had been wrongfully deported to El Salvador and subsequently returned to the U.S. DHS also planned to deport him to Eswatini and Uganda.
In response to these reports, Ablakwa took to Facebook to clarify that Ghana is not willing to accept Abrego Garcia.
He asserted that the information regarding Abrego’s deportation to Ghana has been “directly and unambiguously conveyed to US authorities.”
Ablakwa emphasized that during Ghana’s discussions with US officials, it was explicitly agreed that Ghana would only accept non-criminal West Africans. This would be based solely on solidarity and humanitarian grounds, and not for any other nationals.
“In my discussions with US officials, I made it clear that our agreement to accept a limited number of non-criminal West Africans, based purely on African solidarity and humanitarian principles, would not be broadened.
“Ghana firmly objects to these misleading media reports,” he added.
In September 2025, Ghana consented to accept non-Ghanaian West African nationals deported from the United States, which ignited controversy and legal challenges.
This agreement was announced by President John Dramani Mahama, who stated that Ghana would not accept deportees with criminal records.
The first group of 14 West African deportees, which included Nigerians and a Gambian, arrived in Ghana in September 2025. The government has since facilitated the repatriation of these non-Ghanaian nationals to their respective home countries.
The Minority Caucus in Parliament opposed the agreement and called for its suspension, arguing that it is unconstitutional, poses a national security risk, and was not ratified by Parliament.
They referenced a 2017 Supreme Court ruling, which determined that international agreements that create binding obligations must be ratified by Parliament.
