The ECOWAS Court of Justice has rejected the application of former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, which sought temporary prohibition orders to stop 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 lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.
Justice Torkonoo submitted 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 human rights, she did not sufficiently prove the urgency necessary for the Court to grant temporary orders halting the committee’s activities.
The judges observed that, despite her suspension on April 22, 2025, and her awareness of the ongoing proceedings, she delayed submitting her motion for three months, which weakened her assertions of imminent or irreparable harm.
Consequently, the request for a prohibition order was denied.
The Court also considered a distinct objection raised by Ghana’s Attorney General, who contended that the issue was sub judice due to related matters being presented before a Ghanaian court.
The ECOWAS Court refuted this claim, labelling the objection as “misplaced”.
As per the ruling, the application submitted to the regional court pertains to alleged infringements of Justice Torkonoo’s human rights during the processes of suspension and removal, and it does not aim to review or annul any decision made by a Ghanaian court.
The judges further elucidated that the sub judice principle is applicable only when a case is pending judgment in another forum—not simply because two cases involve analogous facts.
The Court concluded that it possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate the substantive issue, having determined 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.
