The Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has postponed its ruling on an application for provisional measures filed by Ghana’s former Chief Justice, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo. The application seeks to halt proceedings for her removal from office, alongside preliminary objections from the Republic of Ghana. The court will communicate the date for its ruling in due course.
Context of the Case
The case, registered as suit number ECW/CCJ/APP/32/25, originated from an urgent request by the former Chief Justice. She seeks the suspension of domestic proceedings aimed at her removal and her reinstatement with full entitlements pending the ECOWAS Court’s determination of the substantive case. The ECOWAS Court’s decision on this matter is now awaited.
Ghana’s Jurisdictional Challenge
During the hearing on Monday, July 14, 2025, the Republic of Ghana formally requested the ECOWAS Court to first address its jurisdictional objection. Ghana argues that the regional court lacks the authority to hear the former Chief Justice’s application.
The State’s position is that the matter directly concerns constitutional processes currently underway in Ghana’s domestic courts, including the Supreme Court. Therefore, Ghana contends, the issue falls outside the mandate of the ECOWAS judicial body.
Ghanaian representatives warned that allowing the ECOWAS Court to proceed would constitute forum shopping and create a risk of conflicting judgments between domestic and regional judicial systems. This argument aligns with established ECOWAS Court precedent where the court has declined jurisdiction over cases already pending before national courts, respecting the principle of non-interference in ongoing domestic judicial proceedings.
Furthermore, Ghana asserted that the former Chief Justice was properly notified of the petition for her removal and was granted access to all pertinent documents. The State maintains that the current process adheres strictly to constitutional procedures.
Former Chief Justice’s Human Rights Claims
In response, the former Chief Justice argued that her case does not necessitate an interpretation of Ghana’s Constitution. Instead, she contends, it involves alleged violations of fundamental human rights guaranteed under regional legal instruments.
She specifically cited alleged breaches of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, pointing to violations of Article 5 (right to dignity), Article 7 (right to fair hearing), and Article 15 (right to work).
Her legal team emphasized that the ongoing proceedings in Ghana have already inflicted reputational damage and undermined the independence of the judiciary. They warned that permitting the domestic process to continue could render the substantive case before the ECOWAS Court ineffective, thereby negating the purpose of her application.
Application for Provisional Measures
Central to the former Chief Justice’s plea is her application for provisional measures. This request aims to temporarily halt the removal proceedings and restore her entitlements until the ECOWAS Court can adjudicate the substantive issues.
She argued that these interim measures are crucial to prevent irreparable harm, including ongoing reputational damage and potential prejudice to her legal rights. The Applicant also referenced ECOWAS Court jurisprudence that supports its authority to handle human rights claims, even when domestic proceedings are active.
This is particularly relevant in situations where domestic remedies are alleged to be ineffective or where violations are ongoing, providing a basis for the regional court’s intervention.
Implications and Future Outlook
The ECOWAS Court’s forthcoming ruling will be significant, potentially setting a precedent for how regional courts handle cases involving allegations of human rights violations intertwined with domestic judicial processes. It will clarify the boundaries of ECOWAS Court jurisdiction when national constitutional procedures are invoked. Observers will be watching to see if the court prioritizes jurisdictional objections or acknowledges potential human rights breaches that may require immediate regional intervention. The outcome could influence how individuals facing similar domestic legal challenges perceive and utilize regional judicial mechanisms. The substantive case, should it proceed, will further explore the interplay between national sovereignty and regional human rights protections.
Leave a Reply