The ECOWAS Court of Justice has rejected the application of former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, which sought temporary prohibition orders to suspend the activities of the committee investigating her removal from office.
Additionally, the Court dismissed a preliminary objection raised by the Government of Ghana, which contended that the regional court did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the case.
Justice Torkonoo filed her application following the President’s establishment of a committee led by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang to examine the circumstances that ultimately resulted in her removal and the subsequent swearing-in of her successor, Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie.
In its decision on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, the ECOWAS Court determined that while the former Chief Justice had presented a prima facie case alleging violations of her human rights, she did not sufficiently demonstrate the urgency necessary for the Court to issue temporary orders halting the committee’s proceedings.
The judges observed that despite her suspension on April 22, 2025, and her awareness of the ongoing processes, she delayed three months before submitting her motion, which undermined her assertions of imminent or irreparable harm.
Consequently, her request for a prohibition order was denied.
The Court also considered a distinct objection from Ghana’s Attorney General, who claimed that the issue was sub judice due to related matters being before a Ghanaian court. The ECOWAS Court refuted this claim, labeling the objection as “misplaced.”
According to the ruling, the application presented to the regional court pertains to alleged violations of Justice Torkonoo’s human rights during the suspension and removal process, and does not aim to review or overturn any decision made by a Ghanaian court. The judges further explained that the sub judice principle is applicable only when a matter is pending judgment elsewhere, not simply because two cases involve similar facts.
The Court determined that it possesses the authority to adjudicate the substantive issue, having confirmed the presence of a prima facie human rights claim. Consequently, it declared the primary application admissible and instructed the Attorney General to submit a response.
