The Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has ordered Ghana to respond to allegations of human rights violations by December 19, 2025. This directive comes in the case involving former Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo and the Republic of Ghana. Torkornoo alleges that her removal from office, citing “misbehavior” and “incompetence,” was a violation of her rights.
The ECOWAS court determined its jurisdiction based on Article 9(4) of the Court’s 1991 Protocol, as amended in 2005. Despite objections from Ghana’s attorney, Dr. Srem Sai, who argued against the court’s jurisdiction, stating that the matter required constitutional interpretation already decided by Ghana’s highest court, the ECOWAS court held firm. It emphasized that mere allegations of human rights violations by a citizen of an ECOWAS member state suffice to invoke its jurisdiction (JURIST).
Ghana’s objections were twofold. It contended that the court could not interpret national constitutions when a domestic court had ruled, nor could it review cases under national consideration, invoking the principle of sub judice. Nevertheless, the court dismissed these objections, clarifying that it does not interpret local laws or review judgments but considers such cases within a human rights violation context.
Torkornoo’s case is grounded in Articles 5, 7, and 15 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. She argues that her suspension infringed on her rights to a fair hearing and human dignity. Her request for provisional measures was also featured, seeking to quash her suspension and halt her investigation, which she argued could lead to irreparable harm if further progressed.
The case raises critical questions about the intersection of international human rights instruments with national legal frameworks. While the African Charter mandates exhaustion of local remedies before international claims, ECOWAS protocols do not. This case may test the boundaries of the ECOWAS Court’s authority in this regard.
Furthermore, the court’s refusal to grant provisional measures like halting Torkornoo’s suspension underscores an ongoing debate about the practical impact of international human rights law when national processes are in conflict. As Torkornoo’s position has already been filled, the court’s eventual ruling could have limited practical remedy implications, challenging the ECOWAS Court’s ability to enforce its decisions effectively.
The case will continue to unfold, potentially setting precedents in the application of international human rights law within the ECOWAS community, especially regarding protections that clash with national legal procedures.