On Wednesday, 19 November 2025, the ECOWAS Court of Justice delivered a much-anticipated ruling on the preliminary issues arising from the application filed by Ghana’s former Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo.
The decision addressed two matters: her request for provisional measures to halt the removal proceedings commenced against her in Ghana, and the Government’s objection to the Court’s jurisdiction.
The ruling comes at a time when the domestic process has already undergone a full transition. The former Chief Justice has been removed from office, and a new Chief Justice has since been nominated by the President, vetted by Parliament, approved, and sworn into office. Her interim request, therefore, sought to pause a process that, in practical terms, had already culminated in the appointment of her successor. The Court, however, assessed the request according to its legal standards rather than the political or administrative consequences unfolding in Ghana.
The Application Before the Court
The former Chief Justice approached the ECOWAS Court seeking temporary protection while her main action proceeded. She asked the Court to suspend the removal proceedings against her, halt the work of the committee investigating her conduct, and restore her to office with full entitlements, pending the determination of her broader claim alleging violations of her human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The substantive suit also included claims for compensation, restitution, and other remedies arising from the alleged infringements, making the interim application a preliminary step to preserve the status quo while the Court considered the main action.
The Legal Standard for Interim Measures at ECOWAS
Provisional measures at the ECOWAS Court are extraordinary remedies. They exist to prevent real and imminent harm from occurring before the Court can reach a final judgment on the merits. The jurisprudence requires an applicant to meet two strict conditions.
The first is urgency, which the Court equates with extreme gravity. The risk must be immediate, real, and demonstrably incapable of waiting for final judgment. Hypothetical concerns or distant risks are insufficient.
The second is irreparable harm. The applicant must show a reasonable probability that the harm, if allowed to occur, cannot be remedied even if the applicant ultimately succeeds. The purpose of provisional measures is to ensure that a final judgment does not come too late to be meaningful.
These conditions are cumulative, and the absence of one is fatal to the request.
Why the Application Failed
The Court dismissed the former Chief Justice’s application because the requirement of urgency was not met. The judges noted that she filed her interim request nearly three months after her suspension on 22 April 2025. Such a delay, they held, contradicts the claim that she faced imminent danger. The Court described her own conduct as defeating the assertion of urgent and exceptional harm requiring immediate intervention.
This conclusion was reached even though, during that period of delay, the domestic process advanced to the point where a new Chief Justice was nominated, vetted, approved, and sworn into office. The Court treated this progression as a consequence of the applicant’s timing rather than as a basis for emergency intervention at the regional level.
Because urgency is a threshold requirement, the Court did not proceed to assess the question of irreparable harm. Although it acknowledged that her allegations present a prima facie case of possible human rights violations, that alone does not justify the grant of provisional relief.
The Jurisdiction Objection and the Court’s Answer
The Government of Ghana had urged the Court to decline jurisdiction on the ground that matters connected to the removal proceedings were already before the domestic courts, including the Supreme Court. It warned that proceeding with the case could lead to conflicting decisions and amount to forum shopping.
The ECOWAS Court rejected this objection and described it as misplaced. It clarified that the sub judice principle applies only where a matter is awaiting judgment before another competent court. The mere existence of domestic proceedings with similar factual elements does not bar the ECOWAS Court from hearing human rights claims. The Court therefore affirmed its jurisdiction and declared the main application admissible, directing the Attorney General to file a substantive response.
What the Ruling Means Going Forward
The dismissal of interim measures does not resolve the merits of the former Chief Justice’s claims. It does not validate the domestic removal proceedings, nor does it determine whether her rights to dignity, fair hearing, work, or judicial independence were violated. What it means is that the Court will not interfere with the domestic process while the substantive case is pending.
The appointment and swearing-in of a new Chief Justice does not make the case irrelevant. The ECOWAS Court is not responsible for undoing appointments or managing how a country handles its constitutional changes.
Its job is to decide whether the former Chief Justice’s rights were violated during the process that led to her removal. The fact that someone else now holds the office does not stop the Court from hearing the case or from answering the important questions raised.
Conclusion
The ruling illustrates the strict nature of the urgency standard that governs interim measures before the ECOWAS Court. Even where a prima facie case exists, provisional relief will be denied if the applicant’s conduct undermines a claim of imminent harm.
The substantive human rights questions at the heart of the former Chief Justice’s application remain to be answered. Those questions will now be determined through the full hearing of the main case, where the broader implications for rights protection and constitutional accountability will come into sharper focus.
