Adoa News Adoa News
Related Articles
The ECOWAS Court of Justice has dismissed an application filed by former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, in which she sought temporary prohibition orders to halt the work of the committee that investigated her removal from office.
The Court also rejected a preliminary objection by the Government of Ghana, which claimed the regional court lacked the jurisdiction to hear the matter.
Justice Torkonoo filed the application after President John Dramani Mahama established a committee chaired by Supreme Court Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang to inquire into the events that culminated in her suspension, removal, and the subsequent swearing-in of her successor, Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie.
Delivering its ruling on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, the ECOWAS Court held that while the former Chief Justice had made a prima facie case alleging human rights violations, she failed to demonstrate the level of urgency necessary to justify temporary measures. The judges noted that although Justice Torkonoo was suspended on April 22, 2025, and was fully aware of the proceedings against her, she waited nearly three months before seeking emergency relief, undermining her claim of imminent or irreparable harm.
Consequently, her request for a prohibition order was dismissed.
The Court also addressed a preliminary objection raised by Ghana’s Attorney General, Dr. Dominic Ayine, who argued that the matter was sub judice because related issues were pending before a Ghanaian court. The ECOWAS Court rejected this argument, describing it as “misplaced.”
According to the ruling, the application before the regional court concerns alleged violations of the former Chief Justice’s human rights during the suspension and removal process. It does not seek to review, overturn, or interfere with any decision of a Ghanaian court. The judges clarified that the sub judice rule applies only when a matter is awaiting judgment in another court, not merely because two cases involve similar facts or background events.
Having determined that a prima facie human rights claim exists, the Court ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear the substantive matter. The application was declared admissible, and the Attorney General was directed to file the government’s response.
