By Nana Karikari, Senior Global Affairs Correspondent
The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice has moved to regularize a late defense filing by the Ghanaian government in a high-profile human rights suit. This decision follows an application by Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem Sai to admit the state’s response after it missed a critical statutory deadline. The ruling ensures the regional court will hear the government’s full arguments regarding the removal of former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.
Origin of the Judicial Dispute
The legal battle began when Justice Torkornoo filed a case at the Human Rights Court following her initial suspension. The proceedings were triggered under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution following petitions alleging misbehavior and misuse of public funds. Justice Torkornoo contended that the process breached her fundamental human rights. Following her subsequent dismissal by President John Mahama, she elevated the matter to the ECOWAS Court to challenge the legality of her removal from office.
Procedural Delays and State Arguments
The regional court previously allowed Justice Torkornoo and her legal team, led by Femi Falana, to amend her application despite objections from the Attorney-General. The court then directed the state to file its defense within 30 days. This deadline expired on March 1, 2026, without a submission from the government. Dr. Srem Sai later filed the defense alongside a request for the court to exercise its discretion and admit the late documents. He argued that the state had not been officially served with the directive and was unaware of the timeline until a hearing notice arrived. Dr. Srem Sai noted that the defense was filed promptly once the state became aware of the order and mentioned that a public holiday had further intervened.
Opposition and Judicial Scrutiny
Counsel for Justice Torkornoo fiercely opposed the state’s request. They argued that the filing was out of time and noted that no formal application for an extension had been made. The legal team urged the court to strike out the defense entirely. They countered the state’s claim of ignorance by asserting that the directive was issued in the presence of the Attorney-General’s representatives. The court also questioned the state’s
explanation. It noted that under common law practice, “counsel present in court are deemed to have notice of orders once they are delivered.” The bench further observed that the proper procedure would have been to file a formal application for an extension of time.
Final Ruling and Next Steps
Despite the procedural friction, the applicant did not ultimately oppose the state’s request for an extension but asked for the opportunity to respond if it was granted. The ECOWAS Court chose to act in the interest of a full hearing. It granted the extension of time and admitted the state’s amended defense into the record. The court also gave Justice Torkornoo seven days to file a reply to the amended defense. This procedural advancement ensures that the regional body will ultimately decide on the merits of a case that tests the boundaries of judicial independence and executive oversight in West Africa.
