The Ecowas Court has issued a ruling that supports Ghana and has dismissed all claims made by former Chief Justice Torkonoo. The Court determined that there were no violations of rights, and therefore, she was not entitled to her claim for 10 million dollars.
The case for Ghana was presented and debated by Deputy Attorney-General Dr. Justice Sai. The former Chief Justice was represented by the prominent Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana.
Femi Falana expressed his frustration following the judgment, stating that it should be made available so that all judges in the sub-region understand the implications of ruling against their governments. The Court deemed the conduct and comments of Femi Falana as “unacceptable” and expressed that such behavior was unexpected from him.
The court found the arguments presented by Justice Sai to be compelling and upheld each of them in their entirety.
The Court issued the following ruling:
1. The suspension of the Chief Justice did not infringe upon her right to employment. The Court dismisses Torkonor’s assertion that her suspension was capricious and driven by malice.
2. Torkonoo’s dismissal was not without justification. The Court concludes that due process was duly observed.
3. The assertion made by the Chief Justice regarding her simultaneous membership in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, and High Court, and the notion that she should have been removed individually from each of these courts, lacks logical coherence. In the Court’s assessment, her affiliation with these courts was a direct consequence of her role as Chief Justice. Should she cease to hold the position of Chief Justice, her ability to assert membership in all the distinct courts would be nullified.
4. The Court dismissed Torkonoo’s claim that her removal was unlawful, noting that the Committee relied solely on the first petition and did not consider the second and third petitions. The Court concluded that, overall, the Committee acted judiciously to promote judicial economy.
5. The Court also rejected Torkonoo’s argument of being subjected to undignified treatment due to the search conducted on her, as well as her claims regarding the exclusion of her husband and family from the proceedings. Additionally, the Court finds no merit in her argument that the selection of Adu Lodge was intentional due to her uncle’s involvement. The Court determined that the actions implemented to ensure the proceedings were both lawful and proportionate.
The Court dismissed the assertion that the Committee infringed upon her rights by proceeding with the removal actions, even though she had submitted a request for provisional measures aimed at halting the proceedings.
The Court determined that Ghana did not infringe upon Torkonoo’s right to access information regarding the proceedings. Although Torkonoo has the right to obtain the complete report and record of proceedings, she failed to demonstrate that she had initially requested the full report prior to taking legal action.
