Justices of the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice have, in a ruling, granted a request by lawyers of Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo to amend her original application before the court, which was filed for the enforcement of her fundamental human rights before she was removed from Office on 1 September 2025 by President John Dramani Mahama.
Lawyer for Justice Torkornoo, Femi Falana, at the online sitting of the Court held on 30 January 2026, submitted to the court that her client wishes to seek the leave of the court to amend her motion to include specific details on her removal since the same happened before she filed her initial application before the court.
Proceedings
“Following her suspension as Chief Justice of Ghana last year (2025), Justice Torkornoo approached the Community Court of Justice, sitting in Abuja, Nigeria, for legal redress.
“Notwithstanding the pendency of the case in the regional court, President John Mahama removed the Chief Justice from office on 1 September. Consequently, she amended her claim and sought the court’s leave to equally challenge her removal as Chief Justice and as a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ghana,” a source familiar with the case at the ECOWAS court indicated.
“When the matter came up for hearing this morning, the Applicant’s leading counsel, Mr. Femi Falana, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, prayed the Judges to grant the application for the amendment of the initiating application and to deem the amendment already filed proper in the interest of justice.
Mr. Falana stated that the amendment of the application has challenged the legality of the removal of the Applicant as Chief Justice and a Justice of the Supreme Court,” the source further pointed out.
Opposition
The Deputy Attorney-General of Ghana, Justice Srem-Sai, opposed the application for amendment on the ground that it had expanded the initial reliefs sought by the Applicant. He also submitted that the amendment constitutes an abuse of the court process, and he urged the Court to dismiss the application for amendment.
By Court
In their short ruling, the Judges unanimously upheld Mr. Falana’s submission and granted the application, finding that a refusal would lead to a multiplicity of actions arising from the same proceedings. The Court subsequently gave the Respondent (The Republic of Ghana) the opportunity to amend its own defence within 30 days from the date of the hearing.
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 five 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.
The 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 letter to CJ Torkornoo dated 22 April 2025, contained no reasons or justification for stating that a prima facie case had been established against her, and was entirely devoid of 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 case has been found against the applicant without further detail. 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 then chief justice read in part.
