The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Community Court of Justice is set to deliver its final decision in the case of Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo versus The Republic of Ghana, after the court heard oral arguments of lawyers for Chief Justice Torkornoo and those for the Republic of Ghana in the human rights action filed against Ghana by the distinguished Ghanaian legal luminary.
A three-member panel of the court announced the conclusion of the hearing (instead of’ the matter’) after the court’s sitting on Friday, 15 May 2026, which was held in Conakry, the capital city of Guinea.
Justice Gertrude Torkornoo was represented by Femi Falana, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), and the Republic of Ghana was represented by Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, Deputy Attorney General.
After the court confirmed that all parties had complied with the necessary filings, the two lawyers were given about 20 minutes each to deliver their oral arguments. After the arguments, the court announced that it will deliver its judgment on a date to be communicated by the court’s registry to the parties.
Background
Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo filed two applications at the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Court of West African States (ECOWAS) for the enforcement of her human rights over what she says is a blatant disregard for her right to a fair hearing guaranteed by both Ghana’s 1992 constitution and the 1991 protocol of the Community Court of Justice.
The main application and the motion for provisional measures were filed and received at the registry of the Community Court of Justice in Abuja, Nigeria, on 4 July 2025.
It was filed by Femi Falana SAN of Falana & Falana Chambers in Nigeria, for and on behalf of the then Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo. The applications were served in Ghana through the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
Under the rules of the Community Court of Justice, Ghana has 5 days to respond to the motion for provisional measures and 30 days to respond to the main application seeking the enforcement of the Chief Justice’s fundamental human rights. Delays in the filing process and amendments to the original application contributed to the final hearing not being held earlier.
CJ’s contention
Among other points, the ousted chief justice contends in her application that the violation of her right to a fair hearing is grounded in the fact that she was not given a copy of either the supposed prima facie determination or the reasons for the making of a prima facie finding by the president before the president and the disciplinary committee formed, suspended her.
The application further posits that the president’s purported prima facie determination, as communicated in the warrant of suspension and a letter to CJ Torkornoo dated 22 April 2025, did not exist because there was no document containing reasons or justification for stating that a prima facie case had been established against her. The warrant of suspension was unaccompanied by a determination that set out the elements of judicial or quasi-judicial reasoning expected under the constitution.
“Fairness implies that the president, in making the prima facie determination with the Council of State, must specify the particular charges in respect of which a prima facie case is deemed to have been established and the reasons for the same.
“The president’s letter failed to do this. It simply stated that a prima facie has been found against the applicant without more. To date, the applicant does not know the reasons for the president saying that a prima facie case has been established against her.
“Yet a committee has been formed and is working. The president’s purported prima facie determination was no determination at all, as it failed to meet the standard of a judicious and objective assessment and, as such, was arbitrary and capricious,” the application by the Chief Justice read in part.
Reliefs sought
To this end, Justice Torkornoo is seeking ten forms of relief from the Community Court of Justice. First is a “declaration that the suspension of the applicant (Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo) as the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana by the president of the respondent’s state on 22 April 2025 violated the applicant’s human rights to a fair hearing guaranteed by Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights”.
Second, “a declaration that the panel instituted by the respondent (Ghana) to investigate and determine the allegations of misconduct against the applicant was not constituted to guarantee its independence and impartiality and as such has violated the applicant’s human right to fair hearing guaranteed by Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.”
Third, “a declaration that the purported suspension of the applicant as the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana by the president of the respondent state on 22 April 2025, constitutes a violation of her human right to fair, equitable, and satisfactory conditions guaranteed by Article 15 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights”.
Fourth, “a declaration that the purported suspension of the applicant as the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana by the president of the respondent state on 22 April 2025 has exposed her to public ridicule and odium locally and internationally, and the said act constitutes a violation of her human right to dignity guaranteed by Article 5 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights”.
Fifth, “a declaration that by subjecting the applicant to an illegal and unfair investigation and trial since April 2025, the respondent has inflicted injuries on her professional standing and image, thereby exposing her and her family to immeasurable public ridicule”.
Sixth, “an order to the respondent republic to act immediately to prescribe the rule of procedure to govern the investigation of allegations of misconduct against the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana in conformity with the right to fair hearing guaranteed by the constitution of Ghana and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights”.
Seventh, “an order directing the respondent to immediately lift the suspension and restore the applicant to full office until the conclusion of fair constitutional proceedings”.
Eighth, “an order restraining the respondent from continuing with the purported inquiry for the removal of the applicant as the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana in its current form, until it conforms to fair hearing guarantees”.
Nineth, “an award of US$10 million as compensation for moral and reputational damages suffered by the applicant as a result of her illegal suspension and unfair investigation”, and lastly, “any other relief(s) as the Honourable Court deems just”.
Actions of Mahama
Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo was suspended from office by the President of the Republic, John Dramani Mahama, on 22 April 2025 and finally removed from office on 1 September 2025.
The president’s actions, which were said to be grounded in Article 146(10) of the 1992 constitution, were said to have been primarily inspired by three petitions the president received seeking the removal of the chief justice from office.
A group calling itself Shining Stars of Ghana submitted the first petition to the president on 14 February 2025. Kingsley Agyei, who described himself as the chairman and convenor of the Shining Stars of Ghana, signed the petition.
The second petition, presented to the president by Daniel Ofori, was dated Monday, 17 March 2025. The petitioner set out 21 allegations of misbehavior and four allegations of incompetence, all relating to Chief Justice Torkornoo’s discharge of her administrative roles and functions as head of the judiciary.
Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) Ayamga Yakubu Akolgo (Esq), a senior police officer in the Ghana Police Service stationed at the National Police Headquarters in Accra, was the third and final petitioner to submit a petition to the president for the removal of the chief justice from office.
Akolgo’s submission was also made on 14 February 2025. He claimed that he had been arrested while appearing before a panel over which Chief Justice Torkornoo was presiding, so she should be removed from office
In a statement to the nation on 25 June 2025, CJ Torkornoo pointed to a violation of her right to a fair hearing by the committee formed by the president, by being composed of Judges who sat with her on the subject matter of all three petitions, refusing to serve her with a copy of the papers given to them to investigate, and refusing to recognise her lawyer after inviting him to the proceedings with a hearing notice.
