Torkornoo's lawyer Femi Falana tears into ECOWAS Court ruling

Nigerian lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, who represented former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo before the ECOWAS Court, has criticised the court's decision to dismiss her human rights case.

In an exclusive interview with GhanaWeb's Mandy Agyemang on Thursday, July 2, 2026, Falana described the judgment as a departure from the court's established legal principles, arguing that it failed to apply the same standards it had used in similar cases.

According to him, Torkornoo had asked the court to grant relief over alleged violations of her rights to a fair hearing, work, information, and dignity.

"The court considered the application but, unfortunately, departed from its previous decisions in similar cases," he said.

The seasoned lawyer further argued that the court wrongly declined to examine the reasons relied upon for Torkornoo's removal, claiming that doing so would amount to interfering in Ghana's domestic affairs.

He maintained that, in earlier cases involving judges from Nigeria, The Gambia, and Liberia, the ECOWAS Court examined the grounds for their removal and assessed whether the disciplinary processes complied with due process.

“The court claimed that it could not look at the reasons advanced for sacking her because that would amount to interfering in the domestic affairs of Ghana. But we are saying that, in other cases, including the cases of Nigeria, Justice Wowo, The Gambia, Justice Ja'neh, and Liberia, the ECOWAS Court examined the reasons for sacking these judges and came to the conclusion that the committees that investigated the judges were not properly constituted, in the sense that some of the members did not sit, including on the day the decisions recommending their removal were taken.

“In the case of Ghana, Justice Torkornoo's matter, the ECOWAS Court said, ‘These are the reasons for her removal; we can't go into them.’ The court simply said, ‘If we go into these reasons, we will be interfering in the domestic affairs of Ghana,’” he stated.

Falana argued that some of the allegations against Torkornoo did not constitute valid grounds for her removal.

According to him, the deployment of judicial staff was within the powers of a Chief Justice; travelling with her husband was permitted under Ghanaian law and had been cleared by the Auditor-General; while recommendations for appointments to the Supreme Court could not be held against her because the appointments were ultimately made by the appointing authority.

Falana also challenged the composition of the committee that investigated the former Chief Justice.

He argued that two Supreme Court justices who served on the committee had previously sat with Torkornoo on cases that later formed part of the allegations against her, making them judges in their own cause.

"On the composition of the committee, we did say that the two justices on the committee are colleagues of hers on the Supreme Court and sat on the same cases with her, which were later used against her. In other words, these judges were sitting as judges in their own cause. They violated the principle of nemo judex in causa sua," he argued.

He further criticised the court's finding that President John Dramani Mahama was not required to provide reasons before determining that a prima facie case existed against Torkornoo.

Falana said his legal team relied on the Ghana Supreme Court's decision in the Uuter Dery and Tiger Eye PI case, which held that decisions taken under Article 146 of the Constitution are quasi-judicial and therefore require reasons.

ECOWAS Court dismisses all seven claims by ex-CJ Torkornoo against Ghana

On the issue of fair hearing, Falana said the Pwamang Committee set up to probe the petitions against Torkornoo completed its work on August 25, 2025, and adjourned proceedings to September 15, 2025, for the adoption of written addresses.

However, he alleged that members of the committee submitted their report to the President on September 1, 2025, before the scheduled hearing.

"Our allegation, which was not disputed, is that the committee concluded its work on August 25, 2025... On September 1, 2025, the Chief Justice saw the committee members presenting the report to the President... So it's a violation of fair hearing," he maintained.

Falana also questioned the committee's handling of multiple petitions against Torkornoo, arguing that it had no authority to limit its work to only one petition without presidential approval.

He further argued that three non-judicial members of the committee failed to take the required oath before beginning their work, which he said breached constitutional requirements and due process.

On the issue of access to the committee's report, Falana rejected the court's finding that Torkornoo's right to information had not been violated because she did not formally request the report.

He said the legal team tendered a video in court in which a senior official at the Presidency allegedly stated that the government had decided not to release the report.

"Under Section 23 of the Constitution of Ghana, any judicial or administrative panel that makes a determination affecting your interests must provide you with a copy of the report because you may want to challenge it in a court of law. In this case, the court said, 'Sorry, there's no evidence that she applied for the report.'

"She didn't have to apply for the report because we tendered a videotape of a top official at the Presidency who said, 'We are not going to release the report. The government has decided not to release the report.' So how can you now say that the respondent, the Government of Ghana, had not violated her right to information?" he asked.

Falana concluded that several aspects of the judgment represented "a total departure from settled principles of law and the jurisprudence of the ECOWAS Court."

MAG/MA