The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice has approved a request from Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem Sai to regularize a defense submitted after the deadline in a human rights case initiated by former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo.
This ruling permits the state’s response to be accepted despite the missed initial filing deadline. Additionally, the court has granted the applicant a period of seven days to submit a reply to the amended defense.
Justice Torkonoo originally filed the case at the Human Rights Court following her suspension under Article 146 proceedings of the 1992 Constitution, claiming that the process infringed upon her fundamental human rights. After her subsequent dismissal, she revised her application before the ECOWAS court to contest her removal.
Previously, the court had allowed the amendment—despite the Attorney-General’s objections—and instructed the state to submit its defense within 30 days.
Nevertheless, the Attorney-General, represented by Dr. Srem Sai, did not meet the deadline, which lapsed on March 1, 2026, and subsequently filed the defense along with a request for the court’s discretion to accept it.
Counsel for Justice Torkonoo contended that the filing was late and that no formal request for an extension had been submitted, urging the court to dismiss it.
In reply, the Deputy Attorney-General argued that the state had not received the court’s directive and was unaware of the timeline until it obtained a hearing notice.
He informed the court that the defense was filed promptly upon gaining awareness of the order, despite the intervening public holiday, and requested the court to exercise its discretion in the interest of justice.
However, the court questioned this stance, observing that under common law practice, counsel present in court are considered to have notice of orders once they are issued.
It further indicated that the proper course of action would have been to submit a formal application for an extension of time.
Counsel representing Justice Torkonoo argued that the directive was issued in the presence of the Attorney-General’s representatives, rendering claims of insufficient service invalid.
However, the applicant did not contest the state’s verbal request for an extension but requested permission to respond if the court approved the application.
The court then granted the extension of time and accepted the state’s revised defence, while allowing the applicant seven days to submit a response.
