The ECOWAS court has rejected a preliminary objection from the Government of Ghana, which argued that the regional court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case filed by former Chief Justice Torkornoo.
Ghana’s Attorney General had argued that the matter was sub judice because related issues were before a Ghanaian court.
The ECOWAS court, however, disagreed, describing the objection as misplaced.
They argued that the application before the regional court concerns alleged violations of Justice Torkonoo’s human rights during the suspension and removal process, which does not seek to review or overturn any decision of a Ghanaian court.
The regional court resolved that it has jurisdiction to determine the substantive matter, having established the existence of a prima facie human rights claim.
The ECOWAS court, therefore, declared the main application admissible and directed Ghana’s Attorney General to file a response.
It will be recalled, Deputy Attorney General clarified that the government failed to file its defence because they raised concerns objecting the jurisdiction of the ECOWAS court to hear the case.
Speaking in a TV3 interview on September 4, 2025, he said, “This dawn, we woke up to another process which was served on us from the court that the former Chief Justice is seeking judgment in default of defence. In other words, we’ve not defended the substantive suit; we had 30 days to do that, and so we have not filed our defence.”
“But our preliminary thought is that, if we are objecting to the jurisdiction of the court, and the court has taken arguments and has adjourned to give a ruling one way or the other, we do not exactly think that we have to file on the substantive issue. This is because the question before the court is whether the court has jurisdiction or not,” he stated.
He further added, “The court has to clear that aspect first, and when it says that it has jurisdiction to assume, then they will order us to file our defence.
Indeed, if the court was interested, it could have ordered that we should file our defence together with our preliminary objection because we were heard”.
“It’s not as if we argued that matter in the ECOWAS Court, and we were not heard. The court, in adjourning, didn’t give any further direction. They told us that they are rising and then they have adjourned the case indefinitely, and when they come back, they will give us further directions.
So, we were waiting for the court to give us further direction, only to be served with a notice for default of defence. We would have to file to oppose the application for default judgment,” he added.
Meanwhile, Gertrude Araba Esaaba Torkornoo, in her suit, accused President John Dramani Mahama of failing to specify the claims in the petitions for her removal.
According to the details of the lawsuit, she is seeking ten reliefs from the ECOWAS Court, including $10 million in compensation for moral and reputational damages suffered by the Applicant as a result of her illegal suspension and unfair investigation.