The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice has granted an application by Ghana’s Deputy Attorney-General, Dr Justice Srem Sai, to regularise a defence filed out of time in an ongoing human rights case brought by former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.
The ruling allows the state’s response to be admitted despite missing the original filing deadline. The court also directed Justice Torkornoo to file a reply to the amended defence within seven days.
Justice Torkornoo initially filed the case at the Human Rights Court following her suspension under Article 146 proceedings of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, arguing that the process violated her fundamental human rights. After her dismissal, she amended her application before the ECOWAS court to challenge her removal.
The regional court had earlier granted leave for the amendment—despite objections from the Attorney-General—and ordered the state to file its defence within 30 days. However, the deadline expired on March 1, 2026, without a response from the state.
The Attorney-General’s office subsequently filed its defence alongside a request for the court to admit it out of time.
Counsel for Justice Torkornoo opposed the move, arguing that the defence was improperly filed and should be struck out, noting that no formal application for an extension had been made.
In response, Dr Srem Sai argued that the state had not been served with the court’s directive and was unaware of the timeline until it received notice of the hearing. He told the court the defence was filed promptly upon becoming aware of the order and cited the intervention of a public holiday as a contributing factor, urging the court to act in the interest of justice.
The court, however, questioned the explanation, noting that under common law practice, counsel present in court are deemed to have notice of orders when they are delivered. It further indicated that the appropriate procedure would have been to formally apply for an extension of time.
Lawyers for Justice Torkornoo countered that the directive had been issued in the presence of representatives of the Attorney-General, making claims of lack of service untenable.
Despite the objections, Justice Torkornoo’s legal team did not oppose the request for an extension outright but asked the court to grant them the opportunity to respond if the application was allowed.
In its ruling, the court exercised its discretion to grant the extension, admitted the state’s amended defence, and gave Justice Torkornoo seven days to file her reply as proceedings continue.
