By Nana Karikari, Senior Global Affairs Correspondent
The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court of Justice has adjourned to rule on a high-stakes application filed by former Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo, deferring a crucial decision on her bid to halt domestic removal proceedings.
This judicial delay stalls a critical confrontation over suit number ECW/CCJ/APP/32/25—an urgent request by the former jurist seeking the suspension of ongoing domestic proceedings aimed at her removal from office, as well as her reinstatement with full entitlements pending determination of the substantive case before the regional court.
While the ECOWAS Court stated that the date for its ruling will be communicated to the parties in due course, the ongoing legal standoff underscores an escalating tension within the West African bloc over where sovereign constitutional authority ends and regional human rights protections begin.
Ghana Challenges Regional Jurisdictional Limits
During the hearing on Monday, July 14, 2025, the Republic of Ghana forcefully contested the authority of the regional tribunal to intervene in its internal constitutional matters. The State asked the Court to first determine its jurisdictional objection, arguing that the ECOWAS Court lacks authority to entertain the application.
State attorneys asserted that the dispute belongs strictly within the domestic sphere. The State maintained that the matter relates to constitutional processes currently before competent domestic courts in Ghana, including the Supreme Court, and therefore falls outside the remit of the regional judicial body.
To reinforce this position, state counsel argued that permitting the ECOWAS Court to proceed would amount to forum shopping and risk conflicting judgments between domestic and regional courts. To support this stance, the Respondent further cited established ECOWAS Court jurisprudence in which the Court declined jurisdiction over cases simultaneously pending before national courts, reaffirming the principle of non-interference in ongoing domestic judicial proceedings.
Beyond these jurisdictional barriers, Ghanaian authorities also rejected claims of procedural unfairness regarding the impeachment process. The State maintained that the Chief Justice had been duly notified of the petition for her removal and granted access to all relevant documents, insisting that the process underway fully complies with constitutional procedures.
Former Chief Justice Alleges Human Rights Violations
In sharp contrast to the state’s sovereignty arguments, Justice Torkornoo and her legal team presented a fundamentally different interpretation of the dispute. They argued that the case transcends local constitutional mechanics and centers on international legal obligations. In response, the Chief Justice argued that the case does not require interpretation of Ghana’s Constitution, but rather concerns alleged violations of fundamental human rights protected under regional legal instruments.
The former Chief Justice explicitly anchored her case on treaty-based protections. She cited alleged breaches of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, including Article 5 on the right to dignity, Article 7 on the right to fair hearing, and Article 15 on the right to work.
Beyond the specific statutory violations, the Applicant further contended that the ongoing proceedings in Ghana have already caused reputational harm and undermined judicial independence. Her legal team warned that allowing the domestic process to continue could render the substantive matter before the ECOWAS Court ineffective, thereby defeating the purpose of the application.
The Fight for Provisional Measures
At the core of this legal gridlock is whether the regional court will grant emergency relief while the broader legal battle unfolds. Central to the Chief Justice’s request is the application for provisional measures, intended to temporarily halt the removal proceedings and restore her entitlements until the Court determines the substantive issues.
Justice Torkornoo maintains that waiting for a final judgment without interim protection will cause permanent damage to her career and standing. She argued that such measures are necessary to prevent irreparable harm, including continued reputational damage and potential prejudice to her legal rights.
To counter Ghana’s defense of non-interference, her legal team pointed to past interventions by the regional bench. The Applicant further relied on ECOWAS Court jurisprudence affirming its authority to hear human rights claims even where domestic proceedings are ongoing, particularly in situations where domestic remedies are alleged to be ineffective or where violations are continuing.
Escalation, Dismissal, and the $10 Million Reinstatement Battle
However, the legal landscape shifted dramatically in the months following that initial July 2025 adjournment. On September 1, 2025, President John Mahama officially dismissed Chief Justice Torkornoo from office after a five-member constitutional committee found
her guilty of “stated misbehaviour” and incompetence over allegations of fund misuse and arbitrary judicial transfers. Torkornoo fiercely denied the claims, labeling them politically motivated.
Following that executive action, the ECOWAS Court issued a mixed ruling on the initial July applications in late November 2025. The regional bench dismissed Ghana’s preliminary objections, establishing that it possessed jurisdiction to hear Torkornoo’s human rights claims. However, the court denied her request for provisional measures to halt the inquiry, noting that her actual removal from office had already been executed.
This set the stage for a new phase of litigation on January 30, 2026. The ECOWAS Court of Justice unanimously granted an application by Torkornoo’s legal team to amend her original lawsuit to reflect her formal ouster. Her updated case seeks declarations that her removal violated international fair hearing standards, demands her immediate reinstatement to the judiciary, and requests $10 million in moral and reputational damages. The regional court granted the Republic of Ghana 30 days to file its amended defense.
Regional and National Implications
The upcoming ruling will serve as a significant barometer for the balance of power between member states and the overarching judicial authority of the West African bloc. Legal analysts note that the court’s decision will either reinforce the supremacy of domestic impeachment processes or establish a precedent allowing regional intervention when top judicial officials claim state overreach. As both parties await the court’s notification, the case remains a landmark test of whether supranational human rights treaties can effectively pause the internal constitutional machinery of a sovereign democratic state.
