Why Former Chief Justice Torkornoo’s ECOWAS Court Challenge is Unlikely to Succeed

Read Time: 3 minutes

By Kafui Agbleze
July 9, 2025

Former Chief Justice of Ghana, Her Ladyship Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, has filed an application at the ECOWAS Court of Justice challenging what she describes as a violation of her human rights in the process leading to her suspension from office. The suit, lodged on July 4, 2025, claims that the Government of Ghana removed her from office in a manner that breached due process, particularly in the absence of a conclusive determination under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution.

While the application raises serious legal and constitutional issues, an objective assessment grounded in precedent and legal standards suggests that the ECOWAS case is unlikely to succeed. This article outlines key legal principles, recent domestic rulings, and relevant ECOWAS case law to explain why.

Why the ECOWAS Case is Unlikely to Succeed

1. Exhaustion of Local Remedies

A central pillar of ECOWAS jurisprudence is the requirement that applicants must exhaust all available domestic legal remedies before approaching the regional court. In Hussaini v. ECOWAS Commission (ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/22), the Court declined to entertain a revision request due to failure to satisfy procedural prerequisites.

Justice Torkornoo’s legal battle is still active in Ghana’s courts. Her application to the ECOWAS Court, made while proceedings remain pending at the Supreme Court and High Court, may thus be deemed premature and inadmissible.

2. Domestic vs. International Jurisdiction

The core of Torkornoo’s petition is a procedural grievance: that her suspension and the surrounding process amount to constructive removal without proper constitutional compliance. However, the ECOWAS Court typically refrains from adjudicating internal constitutional disputes that are being addressed domestically.
Such matters fall within the jurisdiction of national courts unless they evolve into clear-cut human rights violations that local remedies have failed to resolve.

3. Finality of ECOWAS Court Decisions

The ECOWAS Court’s decisions are final and binding. Given this, the Court often exercises restraint when domestic processes are still unfolding. Ghana can credibly argue that local mechanisms under Article 146 are ongoing and must be concluded before any regional intervention is warranted.

Domestic Proceedings to Date

The ongoing domestic litigation further reinforces the case’s prematurity:

April 9, 2025 – Indefinite Adjournment:
Ghana’s Supreme Court indefinitely postponed hearings into whether President Mahama breached Article 146 in the way he notified Justice Torkornoo of the suspension.

May 28, 2025 – Affidavit Struck Out:
The Supreme Court struck out a supplementary affidavit by Justice Torkornoo, which alleged inhumane treatment, for violating confidentiality under Article 146(8).

May 28, 2025 – Injunction Dismissed:
Her application to halt the work of the committee investigating her was unanimously dismissed by a full panel of the Supreme Court.

These actions reflect the reality that Ghana’s legal system is actively handling the matter, reducing the likelihood of a successful regional appeal.

Key Issues Likely to Undermine the ECOWAS Case

Challenge Explanation

Prematurity The ECOWAS Court is unlikely to hear the matter until Ghana’s courts issue a final ruling.
Duplicative Claims The same claims are currently before the Supreme Court, raising issues of jurisdictional conflict.
Jurisdiction Limits: ECOWAS does not generally interfere in constitutional processes actively under domestic adjudication.

Relevant ECOWAS Precedents

Hussaini v. ECOWAS Commission (2024): The Court rejected a revision attempt by the ECOWAS Commission due to failure to meet procedural requirements. The judgment reaffirmed the strict standard for admissibility.

HSGF Separatists v. Ghana (May 2025): The Court ruled against Ghana for unlawful detention of nine separatists—but only after domestic legal processes had been exhausted and had failed to provide redress.
These cases highlight the principle that the ECOWAS Court serves as a last resort for human rights violations, not as a parallel appeal mechanism.

Current Status (As of July 9, 2025)

ECOWAS Application Filed – July 4, 2025

Injunction Application Dismissed – May 28, 2025

Affidavit Struck Out – May 28, 2025

Supreme Court Proceedings Adjourned Indefinitely – April 9, 2025

Conclusion

Justice Torkornoo’s application to the ECOWAS Court raises critical constitutional and human rights questions. However, based on the court’s own standards and existing jurisprudence, the case faces significant procedural and jurisdictional hurdles. The premature filing, the duplicative nature of the claims, and the unresolved national litigation all weigh heavily against admissibility.

Until the Ghanaian judiciary delivers a conclusive ruling, the ECOWAS Court is unlikely to intervene. The principle of subsidiarity, which prioritizes national legal remedies, remains a central doctrine in ECOWAS human rights adjudication and one that may ultimately render this high profile challenge unsuccessful.

Thank you.

Nuworza medo ooo