ECOWAS Court dismisses ex-Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo’s suit against Ghana

The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice has dismissed all seven claims brought against the Republic of Ghana by former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo in a case challenging her suspension and removal from office.

The ruling marks a significant development in the legal dispute, with the regional court rejecting all allegations that Ghana violated the former Chief Justice’s rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

The outcome was disclosed by Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Justice Srem-Sai, in a Facebook post on Wednesday, June 24, where he confirmed that the court had ruled entirely in favour of the Republic of Ghana.

According to him, the ECOWAS Court also declined to award the US$10 million in damages sought by Justice Torkornoo, finding no legal basis for compensation after determining that none of the alleged rights violations had been established.

The case stemmed from Justice Torkornoo’s challenge to her suspension and subsequent removal from office, actions she argued infringed upon her rights as protected under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

In her application before the ECOWAS Court, the former Chief Justice sought declarations that her rights had been violated and requested substantial financial compensation from the state.

However, after examining the claims and arguments presented, the regional court concluded that Ghana had not breached any of the rights cited in the application.

Quoting the court’s decision, Justice Srem-Sai stated:

“In light of the Court’s conclusions that Ghana has not violated any of the Applicant’s rights under the African Charter as alleged, the Court makes no decision on reparations.”

The court’s determination effectively ends the claims pursued by the former Chief Justice before the ECOWAS judicial body.

The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice had previously dealt with a number of preliminary objections and procedural applications relating to the matter before arriving at its final determination.

The case attracted significant public and legal interest due to its implications for judicial independence, constitutional governance, and the interpretation of human rights protections within the ECOWAS sub-region.

Justice Torkornoo had maintained that the circumstances surrounding her suspension and removal amounted to violations of internationally recognized rights protections.

Ghana, however, contested those claims and defended the actions taken through its legal representatives before the regional court.

Reacting to the judgment, Justice Srem-Sai commended the legal team that represented the Republic of Ghana throughout the proceedings.

He reserved particular praise for the state attorneys and legal officers involved in preparing the government's defence, describing their efforts as instrumental in securing the favourable outcome.

According to the Deputy Attorney-General, the legal team undertook extensive research, legal analysis, and preparation to effectively present Ghana’s position before the court.

He expressed gratitude for their professionalism and dedication, noting that their work contributed significantly to the dismissal of all claims against the state.

The decision reinforces the ECOWAS Court’s role as a regional judicial body responsible for adjudicating claims involving alleged human rights violations and disputes involving member states.

By dismissing all seven claims and declining to award damages, the court effectively affirmed Ghana’s defence against the allegations raised by the former Chief Justice.

The ruling also closes one of the most closely watched legal proceedings involving a former head of Ghana’s judiciary in recent years, bringing finality to the matter at the ECOWAS Court level.

While reactions from the former Chief Justice and her legal team are yet to emerge, the judgment is expected to generate discussion among legal practitioners, governance experts, and civil society organizations regarding judicial accountability, due process, and the relationship between domestic constitutional procedures and regional human rights mechanisms.