An Indian businessman, Ashok Kumar Sivaram, who was deported from Ghana on June 1, 2017, upon a directive from the Interior Minister Ambrose Dery to the Ghana Immigration Service (GIS) has filed a suit in court to demand redress.

The plaintiff in the suit named the Interior Minister and Kwame Takyi and the Comptroller of the GIS as the 1st and 2nd respondent respectively. The plaintiff in the application filed at the High Court, claims the repatriation order is without any basis.

A letter from the lawyers of the deportee attached to the writ read “The Applicant was deported from Ghana on the said morning of 1st June 2017 without any notice to him or being offered the opportunity to be heard on the allegation of forgery levelled against him.

The Respondents carried out this operation without regard to the presence of the Applicant’s business interest in Ghana that employs one hundred and sixty (160) people out of which one hundred and thirty (130) are Ghanaians and thirty (30) are Expatriates. Again, no regard or consideration was given by the Respondents in spite of the pendency of the case in the High Court, Commercial Division and the Order for a valuation process to be undertaken by Ernst & Young to enable the Court to proceed with the matter pending before it,”

Below is an excerpt of the letter by the lead counsel of plaintiff Gary Nimarko

Respectfully, My Lord, it appears that issuance of Executive Instrument by the 1st Respondent prior to the deportation of an alien is permissive under the Act but it is worth pointing out that Deportation Orders of an Alien subject to Deportation is backed by Executive Instrument. In the case of this Applicant, no Executive Instrument was issued by the 1st Respondent in respect of the Deportation Order.

My Lord, it is also worth pointing out that the Applicant was in Ghana as a Residence/Work Permit holder and has since been on that status until the permit was cancelled on 1st June 2017 and immediately deported from Ghana.

My Lord, the Applicant was not in Ghana on the basis of an alleged fraudulent Marriage Certificate which the 1st Respondent is claiming that was submitted for Registration as a Ghanaian citizen. As a matter of fact, there is no record of the Applicant having involved himself in a criminal enterprise in Ghana since he started coming into the country from the year 2000 for which the 1st Respondent says that "his presence in Ghana is not conducive to the public good".

A closer reading of the Deportation Order makes it clear that the 1st Respondent came to the conclusion that the Applicant’s presence in Ghana was not conducive to the public good after having made a judicial determination that the Applicant has submitted a forged Marriage Certificate in support of his application for citizenship and that, that act is fraudulent and criminal.

Respectfully, My Lord, we are at a loss as to whether the 1st Respondent has the jurisdiction to determine fraud within the powers vested in him under the Immigration Act 2000, (Act 547).

Moreso, Lawyers for the plaintiff, however, pleaded with the court to determine any incident of fraud and that determination of fraud by the 1st Respondent was clearly in excess of his jurisdiction and that act by the 1st Respondent is amenable to be quashed by Certiorari.