By Socrates Smythe Saywon | Monrovia, Liberia | October 26, 2025
In a decisive diplomatic move, Ghana officially rejected the United States’ proposal to deport Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Accra. The country’s foreign minister made it clear that Ghana has “no plans to accept” him and that the existing U.S.–Ghana arrangement covers only a limited number of non-criminal West Africans on humanitarian grounds. This rejection immediately sparked international debate, especially after reports indicated that three African nations, Eswatini, Uganda, and Ghana, had all declined U.S. requests to host the controversial deportee.
The spotlight has now turned to Liberia, which has reportedly agreed to receive Abrego under what American authorities describe as a “temporary humanitarian arrangement.”
Ghana’s decision to reject the deportee is rooted in constitutional, political, and moral reasoning. The government stated that its existing agreement with the United States is narrow and designed to accommodate certain West Africans in distress, not non-African nationals. By refusing, Ghana asserted its sovereignty and avoided the perception of being used as a dumping ground for unwanted foreign nationals.
Parliamentary critics in Accra have also demanded that any such international arrangements be laid before the legislature, citing Article 75 of the 1992 Constitution, which requires parliamentary ratification of international agreements. Beyond the legal aspect, Ghana’s rejection carried political prudence, as the government sought to avoid internal backlash and reputational risks that could arise from appearing to cooperate in controversial U.S. deportation policies.
In contrast, Liberia’s acceptance of Abrego Garcia appears to reflect a different set of strategic calculations. According to reports by the Associated Press, Politico, and The Washington Post, U.S. filings reveal that Liberia agreed to host Abrego strictly on humanitarian grounds, despite his lack of prior ties to the country. While some critics see this as a risky move, the Boakai administration may view it as an opportunity to strengthen Liberia’s diplomatic ties with Washington.
By cooperating with the U.S. in a high-profile deportation case, Liberia positions itself as a trusted and responsible partner in global humanitarian and migration affairs, a reputation that can attract international goodwill and development aid. Politically, Liberia stands to gain favor with one of its most important allies. The United States remains Liberia’s largest donor, providing support in governance, health, education, and infrastructure. Demonstrating cooperation on a sensitive matter could help the Boakai government reinforce its credibility with Washington and signal to other international partners that Liberia remains a dependable actor in humanitarian diplomacy.
Economically, Liberia may benefit from indirect incentives, such as expanded development programs or renewed attention to bilateral agreements aimed at strengthening public institutions and security cooperation. At the same time, Liberia’s acceptance of Abrego sends a message of compassion and moral leadership. The U.S. court filing described Liberia as “a thriving democracy committed to the humane treatment of refugees,” an image that aligns well with Liberia’s historical tradition of offering asylum to the oppressed and displaced.
From a public-relations standpoint, welcoming Abrego could enhance Liberia’s global image as a peaceful and open society, particularly in an era when many nations are closing their borders to refugees and deportees.
Still, this decision is not without challenges. Liberia must be transparent about the nature of Abrego’s stay, the costs associated with hosting him, and the duration of his presence in the country. While Ghana, Uganda, and Eswatini have all prioritized domestic accountability and political caution, Liberia must ensure that its humanitarian gesture does not create public misunderstanding or domestic unease. The government must clearly define the legal status of Abrego’s stay and communicate openly with the Liberian people about the rationale behind the move.
Ghana’s refusal reflects a protective stance toward national sovereignty and constitutional accountability, while Liberia’s acceptance embodies a more pragmatic and opportunistic approach to foreign relations. The decision could yield dividends for Liberia politically, economically, and diplomatically if handled with transparency and foresight. However, it also underscores the fine balance that smaller nations must strike when navigating complex international demands from powerful allies.
Liberia’s choice to accept Kilmar Abrego Garcia could either reinforce its image as a nation of compassion and global responsibility or expose it to criticism for bending to external pressure. The outcome will depend on how well the Boakai administration manages the narrative, one that Ghana, Uganda, and Eswatini have chosen to avoid.
