Dr. Justice Srem-Saia and Justice, Gerturde Torkornoo
Deputy Attorney General, Dr. Justice Srem-Sai, and former Chief Justice, Gerturde Torkornoo, appeared to be divided over an application filed by the later asking the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Community Court of Justice to enter judgment in default against the government of Ghana.
Justice Torkornoo filed a $10m suit before the regional court alleging breaches of her rights to dignity, fair hearing and right to work when President John Dramani Mahama suspended her on April 22, 2025 following the setting up of a committee to probe three petitions calling for her removal from office.
It is not unusual that the two will take different views on legal matters regarding the Article 146 proceedings, but the main bone of contention is the silence of the ECOWAS Community Court on an application by the state challenging its jurisdiction.
While she is asking the court to enter judgment in her favour for the Attorney General’s failure to enter a defence, the Deputy Attorney General suggests that the state has a good reason for not doing so, as the court was yet to make a determination on their preliminary objection to its jurisdiction to hear the matter in the first place.
Suit
Justice Torkornoo filed the suit after the Supreme Court dismissed three separate applications asking for the suspension of the committee probe and the High Court dismissing a suit she filed alleging human right breaches.
She is asking the ECOWAS Community Court to award her $10 million in compensation for moral and reputational damages, revocation of her suspension, as well as an order halting the committee’s work.
She argues among others, that the process leading to her suspension and the subsequent probes were arbitrary and lacked transparency.
Removal
While the case was pending, President Mahama removed Justice Torkornoo from office following the receipt of the report of a five-member committee that probed a petition filed against her.
She became the first ever Chief Justice to be removed from office in the 4th Republic following the recommendation of a committee probing allegations of misconduct and misbehaviour.
Preliminary Objection
Instead of filing a response to the suit, Ghana through the Attorney General, raised a preliminary objection challenging the reginal court’s jurisdiction to hear the case since it concerned constitutional matters pending before competent domestic courts in Ghana, including the Supreme Court.
They contended that allowing the ECOWAS Court to proceed would amount to forum shopping and could lead to conflicting decisions. It cited some decided cases where the Court declined jurisdiction over matters concurrently pending before national courts, affirming its principle of non-interference in ongoing domestic judicial processes.
Opposition
Justice Torkornoo on her part argued that the proceedings in Ghana had already inflicted reputational harm on her and compromised judicial independence.
She stressed that allowing it to proceed could render the substantive matter before the ECOWAS Community Court moot.
The Court adjourned the matter to give its ruling on the preliminary objection raised by the state.
The former Chief Justice later filed an application for judgement in default of the government of Ghana’s failure to response to her suit.
DAG Disagrees
But the Deputy Attorney General has clarified that the State did not file a response to the suit because it was still waiting for the court’s decision on the preliminary objection.
“…Our preliminary thought is that, if we are objecting to the jurisdiction of the court, and the court has taken arguments and has adjourned to give a ruling one way or the other, we do not exactly think that we have to file on the substantive issue. This is because the question before the court is whether the court has jurisdiction or not,” he indicated during an interview with TV3.
He further pointed out that the Attorney General’s Office was waiting for the ECOWAS Community Court’s decision on the preliminary issues before going ahead to file a response.
“The court has to clear that aspect first and when it says that it has jurisdiction to assume, then they will order us to file our defense. Indeed, if the court was interested, it could have ordered that we should file our defense together with our preliminary objection because we were heard,” he said.
Dr. Srem-Sai added that, “It’s not as if we argued that matter in the ECOWAS Community Court, and we were not heard. The court in adjourning didn’t give any further direction. They told us that they are rising and then they have adjourned the case indefinitely, and when they come back, they will give us further directions. So, we were waiting for the court to give us direction only to be served with a notice for default of defense. We would have to file to oppose the application for default judgment.”
BY Gibril Abdul Razak