The legal battle surrounding the controversial removal of former Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo, took a significant turn this
The legal battle surrounding the controversial removal of former Chief Justice, Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo, took a significant turn this week after the ECOWAS Court of Justice dismissed her application for provisional measures—but simultaneously ruled that it retains full authority to hear her substantive human rights case against the State.
In a carefully reasoned decision, the regional court declined to grant Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo’s request for temporary prohibition orders that sought to suspend the work of the five-member committee established by President John Dramani Mahama to investigate her conduct.
The committee’s findings ultimately led to her removal from office, a process the former Chief Justice claims violated multiple constitutional and human rights protections.
Court Says Delay Undercut Urgency Claim
Although the ECOWAS Court acknowledged that Justice Torkornoo had raised a prima facie case suggesting possible human rights breaches, the judges ruled that she failed to meet the strict test of urgency required for temporary relief.
Central to the court’s reasoning was the three-month delay between when Chief Justice Torkornoo became aware of the committee’s activities and when she finally filed her application for provisional measures.
According to the ruling, this delay “undermined her claim of imminent and irreparable harm,” making it impossible for the court to justify the emergency intervention she sought.
The decision was therefore a procedural rejection—not a determination on the merits of the case.
Legal analysts describe the outcome as a “technical knockout,” noting that the former CJ’s broader human rights claim remains intact and will proceed to a full hearing.
Government’s Jurisdiction Objection Falls Flat
In a major development, the court also dismissed the Government of Ghana’s preliminary objection that the matter should not be heard because similar issues were already pending before Ghanaian courts.
The Attorney-General had argued that the ECOWAS Court lacks jurisdiction where domestic courts are seized with related matters, especially those touching on constitutional interpretation.
But in a strong rebuttal, the ECOWAS Court held that the objection was “misplaced.”
The judges clarified that Justice Torkornoo’s case before the regional court is not an appeal or review of any Ghanaian court decision, but rather a petition alleging violations of her fundamental human rights—a mandate squarely within the ECOWAS Court’s jurisdiction.
The ruling stressed that the sub judice rule applies only where two courts are simultaneously considering the same legal question, not merely because two cases arise from similar facts or events.
Background to the High-Stakes Legal Confrontation
Chief Justice Torkornoo’s removal earlier this year became one of the most polarizing episodes in the constitutional and political arena.
Appointed Chief Justice in 2023, she was suspended and later removed by President Mahama after the five-member committee—set up under Article 146 procedures—recommended her dismissal.
The former CJ has repeatedly maintained that both the composition and conduct of the committee violated due process, and that the President’s actions breached her constitutional rights. Her petition before the ECOWAS Court seeks a declaration of human rights violations, reinstatement, and significant compensation.
Her supporters have described the removal as an attack on judicial independence, while government officials insist the process was constitutional and necessary.
What Stands After the ECOWAS Ruling
The latest ruling produces several key outcomes:
Justice Torkornoo’s application for interim orders has been dismissed.
This does not affect her main case; it only means the ECOWAS Court will not stop or reverse committee actions at this stage.
Government’s claim that ECOWAS lacks jurisdiction has been rejected.
The regional court affirmed it has full authority to hear and determine the human rights claims.
The substantive case remains active.
The court will now proceed to examine the allegations of constitutional and rights violations in detail.
Public Should Ignore Claims That the Case Has Been Dismissed
Some misleading publications have suggested that the ECOWAS Court has thrown out Justice Torkornoo’s entire case. That assertion is false.
The court has only dismissed the request for temporary measures—not the main suit. The substantive human rights allegations remain live, and hearings are expected to continue in the coming months.
As the case advances, it is poised to test the limits of regional judicial oversight, redefine the interaction between national constitutional processes and ECOWAS’ human rights mandate, and further fuel Ghana’s ongoing debate over judicial independence and executive power.
COMMENTS