A memorandum of understanding (MoU) between Ghana and the United States on deportations has reignited debate over whether such international arrangements require parliamentary ratification before implementation.
Foreign Affairs Minister, Samuel Okudzeto Ablakwa, has defended the government’s decision to operationalise the MoU, under which 14 deportees have already been received, arguing that the agreement is non-binding and therefore does not need immediate parliamentary approval. He cited legal precedent, constitutional provisions, Cabinet review, and advice from the Attorney General as the basis for government’s position.
“The agreement will only go to Parliament for ratification if it is later upgraded to a full treaty,” Mr. Ablakwa explained, while stressing that safeguards exist to prevent deportees who may pose security threats from entering the country.
But the Deputy Ranking Member of Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, Nana Kwame Asafo-Adjei Ayeh, has challenged this reasoning, insisting that the government’s reliance on the MoU framework is questionable.
“For you to tell us that you don’t need to go to Parliament because it is an MoU—that is where I disagree with you,” he said on Channel One TV’s The Big Issue on Saturday, September 20.
According to him, Ghana’s democratic institutions are weakened when international agreements of such significance are not subjected to parliamentary scrutiny. “We are only doing it for posterity. We are doing it for the good people of this country,” he stressed.
The NPP MP also criticised the Foreign Minister’s claim that similar MoUs had been inherited from past governments, describing the justification as “problematic.”
Observers say the controversy underscores the growing tension between executive discretion in foreign policy and Parliament’s constitutional role in treaty-making—a debate that has featured prominently in recent landmark Supreme Court rulings.
