ECOWAS court accepts Ghana’s late defence in Torkonoo case
The decision means the Attorney-General’s response, though filed after the deadline set by the court, will remain part of the proceedings.
Ghana has been allowed to file a late defence in the human rights case brought at the ECOWAS Court by former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo, after the regional court exercised its discretion in favour of the state.
The decision means the Attorney-General’s response, though filed after the deadline set by the court, will remain part of the proceedings. The court also opened a new window for Justice Torkonoo to react, giving her seven days to file a reply to the amended defence.
The dispute over timing arose after the court had earlier allowed Justice Torkonoo to revise her original application. Her first case focused on the human rights implications of her suspension under Article 146 of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution. After her dismissal, she expanded the claim to challenge her removal as well.
Once that amendment was allowed, the court directed the state to respond within 30 days. That deadline expired on 1 March 2026.
The Attorney-General’s office, represented by Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem Sai, did not meet it. When the defence was eventually filed, it was accompanied by an appeal to the court to accept the document despite the delay.
Lawyers for Justice Torkonoo urged the court to reject the filing, arguing that it had been submitted out of time and without the formal application that would ordinarily be required to seek an extension.
The state, however, told the court it had not been served with the order setting the deadline and only became aware of the timetable after receiving notice of the hearing. Dr Srem Sai said the response was then filed without delay, despite a public holiday falling within the period, and asked the court to admit it in the interest of justice.
The judges appeared unconvinced by part of that explanation. They noted that, in ordinary common law practice, lawyers who are present when an order is made are treated as having notice of it. The court also signalled that the more regular procedural route would have been a formal application for extension of time.
Justice Torkonoo’s side pressed that point, arguing that representatives of the Attorney-General had been in court when the directive was issued and could not credibly claim ignorance. Even so, her lawyers did not oppose an oral request for more time, provided they were allowed to answer the state’s amended defence.
That is ultimately the course the court took.
In its ruling, the ECOWAS court granted the request to regularise the late filing, admitted the amended defence, and gave Justice Torkonoo seven days to respond. The decision keeps the matter moving, with both sides now set to continue the legal contest over the former Chief Justice’s suspension and removal.
