Full reasons ECOWAS Court dismissed Justice Torkonoo's case against Ghana
The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice has outlined several reasons for dismissing all claims brought by former Chief Justice Gertrude Esaaba Torkornoo against the Republic of Ghana over the process that led to her removal from office.
The court found that Ghana did not violate the former Chief Justice's rights under the African Charter and held that the proceedings that culminated in her removal complied with due process requirements.
The ruling delivered on Wednesday, June 24, addressed issues ranging from the constitution of the investigative committee and allegations of bias to claims of unfair treatment, denial of information and the legality of her suspension and dismissal.
On the issue of fair hearing, the court held that the right to a fair hearing began after the establishment of the five-member committee and not during the earlier prima facie determination by the President and the Council of State.
The court also ruled that the prima facie determination served as a filtering mechanism and therefore dismissed the former Chief Justice's complaint that she was not provided reasons for the finding.
Regarding claims that Justice Torkornoo and her lawyers were prevented from fully participating in the proceedings, the court said records of the committee did not support those allegations.
The judges further rejected claims that the committee employed an improper procedure, explaining that such matters are governed by the domestic laws and regulations of individual member states.
The court dismissed allegations of bias against committee members, including claims against Justices Gabriel Pwamang and Samuel Kwame Adibu-Asiedu, holding that their involvement in separate matters involving one of the petitioners did not establish bias.
It also held that questions regarding whether committee members took the required oaths before assuming their roles fall within the jurisdiction of Ghanaian courts.
On the committee's findings, the ECOWAS Court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to reassess evidence considered by the committee, stating that such matters are for domestic courts to determine.
The court also rejected the former Chief Justice's argument that she remained a Justice of the Supreme Court after her removal as Chief Justice.
According to the judges, it would be "absurd" to suggest that a person could be removed as Chief Justice while still retaining membership of the Supreme Court, since those positions flow from the office of the Chief Justice.
The court further found that the committee acted within its discretionary powers when it completed its work after considering one of the three petitions filed against her.
It ruled that the committee's proceedings were regular and that her removal did not violate her right to work.
On allegations that she was subjected to degrading treatment, including body searches and the use of Adu Lodge as the venue for proceedings, the court held that the security measures adopted were reasonable and proportionate.
The judges also dismissed complaints regarding media leaks, noting that holders of high public office must expect heightened public and media scrutiny, provided such scrutiny remains within acceptable limits.
The court further held that the filing of proceedings before the ECOWAS Court did not prevent Ghana from continuing with its constitutional processes, particularly since no binding order had been issued against the state at the time of her removal.
On access to information, the court found that the failure to provide reasons for the prima facie determination did not violate the African Charter.
Although the court acknowledged that Justice Torkornoo was entitled to receive the committee's report, it held that there was no evidence that she had formally requested the document and been denied access.
The ECOWAS Court consequently dismissed all reliefs sought by the former Chief Justice and held that Ghana did not breach any of her rights during the removal process.
Justice Torkornoo was removed from office on September 1, 2025, after a committee established to investigate petitions against her found her culpable on allegations brought against her following her suspension.