The decision by Ghana’s Supreme Court ordering the release of details of the agreement between the Ghanaian and the United States governments which allowed the relocation of two former Guantanamo Bay detainees to Ghana is highly commendable.

Public debates of the judgment will no doubt be polarised of the politics surrounding the issue in both countries. However, I argue that we all ought to celebrate the fact that we shall soon have clarity of the circumstances surrounding the relocation and presence of the two gentlemen in Ghana.

The extremely opaque terms under which they were transported into the country do not only constitute an extension of the injustices arising from their imprisonment but they also raise  serious questions about claims by the Ghanaian and the United States governments to be champions of  genuine freedom, equality, and justice when subjected to critical scrutiny.

On January 6, 2016, Mahmud Umar Muhammad bin Atef and Khalid Muhammad Salih al-Dhuby, were released from the Guantanamo Bay prison where they had been held for almost 14 years without charge or trial. Their release was subject to an agreement between the Ghanaian and the United States governments, full details of which until the court’s ruling yesterday, was shielded from the public in both countries. Despite the secrecy surrounding the transfer, US officials argued that it was further evidence of President Obama’s resolve  to close down Guantanamo Bay and bring to an end the flagrant human rights violations that facility represents.

Similarly, Ghanaian government officials also held it up as evidence of the country’s willingness to assist in international crises situations. However, public reaction in the country has been predominantly angry. A principle concern in the range of furious comments in media is that the government has brought‘terrorists’ into the country and that ‘terrorist attacks’ were likely to follow.

Such views and fears evidently ignore the fact that the two men are innocent, for they were neither charged nor convicted of terrorism despite being imprisoned and interrogated under torturous conditions.

The cause of these unfounded fears of reprisal terrorist attacks in Ghana was not only due to a misunderstanding of the circumstances surrounding the two gentlemen’s imprisonment but mainly because of the murky terms surrounding their transfer and reluctance by both governments to offer full disclosure. To be clear, I fully support of President Obama’s resolve to close the Guantanamo Bay prison. I also commend the Ghanaian government ‘s decision to accept the two former detainees; particularly so as they have themselves thanked the government of Ghana and its people for taking them in. However, regardless of what other information the public will soon discover now that the terms of their stay are to be released, there are still questions to be asked of both governments in relation to the two gentlemen’s civil liberties and human rights.

First, were the two former detainees given a choice or say about being moved to Ghana? Or was their transfer conducted under an inter-governmental arrangement in which they had little or no say? It seems quite improbable that given a choice about their resettlement location, Mahmud Umar Muhammad bin Atef, and Khalid Muhammad Salih al-Dhuby would have chosen Ghana, a country with which they have absolutely no social, cultural, economic or political ties!

This disconnection and the intense public anger being expressed about their presence in the country is a clear risk to their continued safety and well-being. To put it quite bluntly, although the two men have expressed appreciation for being allowed to stay in Ghana (obviously preferable to continued imprisonment in Guantanamo), the conditions surrounding the transfer appear almost as illiberal as the conditions under which they were kept at Guantanamo. They may no longer be in prison, but they are not necessarily free men. 

This view is lent credence by an interview given by Foreign Minister, Hannah Tetteh to Radio Gold in the immediate aftermath of the two gentlemen’s relocation. In her words, the men are ‘free’. They are at liberty to go wherever they want in the country. However, unlike other free men, they ‘cannot just get up and go’.  Instead, they will be kept under strict surveillance at all times and will also require instructions and permission before they can go even to the mall.

They do not even appear to have the right to work and to a family reunion, among others. We shall hopefully find out now that the court has ordered disclosure by the government, but quite surprisingly during the interview, the minister was not able to say whether the gentlemen were in the country as visitors, refugees, asylum seekers or under another category altogether.

To cap it all, despite claims that they are free and have been permitted to stay in Ghana because of the civil war in Yemen, the two former detainees are actually not permitted to leave Ghana for 2 years. Even after this time, the country will have to seek  authorisation from the United States government before allowing them to leave, with some US senators calling for punitive action of up to $20,000, 000 cut in foreign aid if the men are allowed to escape or if Ghana fails to comply with the terms set out in the agreement. 

Thus, what has been presented as a benign and worthy action by President Obama on one hand and a humanitarian gesture by the Ghanaian government on the other seems to be a continuous violation of the rights of former Guantanamo Bay inmates by the United States, with the collusion of Ghana this time. It also appears to be a further display of US political hegemony and its capacity to compel weaker or poorer countries to agree to do its bidding, through fair or foul means.

*Note: an earlier version of this article was published by Pambazuka news in the immediate aftermath of the relocation of the two former detainees*

*****************************************************************

Dr. Samuel Okyere

Assistant Professor of Sociology and Criminology

School of Sociology and Social Policy (Room B37)

University of Nottingham

NG7 2RD