ECOWAS Court Grants AG Extension to File Defence in Torkonoo Case
ECOWAS court allows late filing of state defence in human rights case by former Chief Justice Torkonoo
- ECOWAS Court allowed the Attorney-General to file a late defence in the Torkonoo human rights case.
- Despite missing the original March 1, 2026 deadline, the court accepted the state’s amended defence.
- Former Chief Justice Torkonoo has been given seven days to file a reply to the state’s defence.
The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice has approved an application by Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Srem Sai, allowing the state to regularize a defence filed late in a human rights case brought by former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo.
The court’s ruling permits the state’s response to be admitted despite missing the original filing deadline and grants the applicant seven days to respond to the amended defence.
Justice Torkonoo initially filed the case at the Human Rights Court after her suspension under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, claiming the process violated her fundamental rights. Following her dismissal, she amended her application at the ECOWAS court to challenge her removal.
The court had previously allowed the amendment—despite objections from the Attorney-General—and directed the state to file its defence within 30 days. However, the Attorney-General, represented by Dr. Srem Sai, missed the March 1, 2026 deadline and later submitted the defence with a request for the court’s discretion to accept it.
Justice Torkonoo’s counsel argued that the filing was late and that no formal extension request had been made, urging the court to strike it out.
In response, Dr. Srem Sai stated that the state had not been properly served with the court’s directive and was unaware of the filing timeline until receiving a hearing notice. He said the defence was filed promptly upon becoming aware, despite a public holiday, and requested the court exercise discretion in the interest of justice.
The court noted that, under common law, counsel present in court are considered notified of orders once delivered and that the proper procedure would have been to formally request an extension. Justice Torkonoo’s team countered that the Attorney-General’s representatives were present when the directive was issued, making claims of non-service untenable.
Ultimately, the court granted the extension, admitted the state’s amended defence, and allowed the applicant seven days to file a reply.
