ECOWAS Court rejects Torkonoo’s request to stop probe committee

The ECOWAS Court of Justice has dismissed former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo’s application seeking temporary prohibition orders to halt the work of the committee that investigated her removal from office.

The Court also rejected a preliminary objection from the Government of Ghana, which argued that the regional court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

Justice Torkonoo applied after President John Dramani Mahama constituted a committee chaired by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang to inquire into matters that eventually led to her removal and the swearing-in of her successor, Chief Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie.

In its ruling on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, the ECOWAS Court held that although the former Chief Justice had established a prima facie case alleging human rights violations, she failed to demonstrate the urgency required for the Court to issue temporary orders stopping the committee’s proceedings.

The judges noted that despite being suspended on April 22, 2025, and fully aware of the ongoing processes, she waited three months before filing her motion—undermining her own claims of imminent or irreparable harm.

As a result, the request for a prohibition order was dismissed.

The Court also addressed a separate objection by Ghana’s Attorney General, Dominic Ayine, who argued that the matter was sub judice because related issues were before a Ghanaian court. The ECOWAS Court disagreed, describing the objection as “misplaced.”

According to the ruling, the application before the regional court concerns alleged violations of Justice Torkonoo’s human rights during the suspension and removal process, and does not seek to review or overturn any decision of a Ghanaian court. The judges further clarified that the sub judice principle applies only when a matter is awaiting judgment elsewhere—not merely because two cases share similar facts.

The Court concluded that it has jurisdiction to determine the substantive matter, having established the existence of a prima facie human rights claim. It therefore declared the main application admissible and directed the Attorney General to file a response.