A Battle of Jurisdictions Heats Up
The highly anticipated decision on Ghanaian Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo’s plea to halt her removal proceedings has been put on hold by the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice.
This comes after a heated exchange between legal eagles representing the embattled Chief Justice and the Republic of Ghana.
Justice Torkornoo, facing the heat back home, is desperately seeking an injunction from the regional court. Her application, filed as suit number ECW/CCJ/APP/32/25, demands the immediate suspension of all ongoing efforts to oust her from office and her full reinstatement with all perks and privileges.
She wants this to stick until the ECOWAS Court delivers its final verdict on her substantive case.
But hold on a minute! Ghana’s legal team stormed the court on Monday, throwing a spanner in the works with a preliminary objection. They’re arguing that the ECOWAS Court should keep its hands off, insisting the matter is a purely Ghanaian affair, already being thrashed out in their own local courts, including the Supreme Court.
The State’s lawyers didn’t mince words, painting Justice Torkornoo’s move as a classic case of “forum shopping” – trying to find a more favorable court – which could lead to a messy clash of judicial decisions.
They cited past precedents, stressing that the ECOWAS Court generally steers clear when domestic legal processes are in full swing and readily available.
They also maintained that the Chief Justice was fully informed of the petition against her and had access to all necessary documents, asserting that Ghana’s removal process followed the letter of the law.
However, Justice Torkornoo’s legal guns fired back, vehemently rejecting Ghana’s claims. They hammered home their argument that the ECOWAS Court has every right to intervene, citing blatant violations of fundamental human rights enshrined in regional instruments.
They pointed to breaches of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, specifically Article 5 (right to dignity), Article 7 (right to a fair hearing), and Article 15 (right to work).
Justice Torkornoo’s camp stressed that the ongoing saga has not only tarnished her reputation but also poses a grave threat to the very independence of Ghana’s judiciary.
They warned that if the domestic process is allowed to run wild, their case before the ECOWAS Court could be rendered useless, effectively shutting down her avenue for justice through regional channels.
Her legal eagles doubled down, reminding the court of its own established track record – that it can and should hear human rights cases even when domestic litigation is active, especially when local remedies seem to be hitting a dead end.
They argued that these provisional measures are crucial to prevent irreparable damage, safeguard the essence of the suit, and protect her rights until a final judgment is delivered.
After hearing both sides duke it out, the ECOWAS Court has adjourned for a ruling on the provisional measures. The exact date for the judgment remains under wraps for now, with all parties to be informed in due course.
Will the ECOWAS Court side with Ghana and allow the domestic process to continue, or will it step in to protect Chief Justice Torkornoo’s alleged human rights? Only time will tell as this high-stakes legal drama unfolds.
By Prince Ahenkorah
