The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice has granted an application by Deputy Attorney-General, Justice Srem Sai to regularize a defence filed out of time in a human rights suit brought by former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo.
The ruling allows the state’s response to be admitted despite missing the initial deadline, while the applicant has been given seven days to file a reply to the amended defence.
Justice Torkonoo first filed the case at the Human Rights Court following her suspension under Article 146 of the 1992 Constitution, arguing that the process breached her fundamental rights. After her dismissal, she amended her application before the ECOWAS court to challenge her removal.
The regional court had earlier approved the amendment—despite objections from the Attorney-General—and directed the state to submit its defence within 30 days. However, the deadline, which expired on March 1, 2026, was not met. The Attorney-General’s office subsequently filed its response along with a request for the court to admit it out of time.
Lawyers for Justice Torkonoo opposed the move, arguing that the filing was late and that no formal application had been made to extend the deadline, urging the court to strike it out.
In response, Dr Srem Sai contended that the state had not been served with the court’s directive and only became aware of the timeline upon receiving a hearing notice. He said the defence was filed promptly after becoming aware, despite a public holiday, and appealed to the court to exercise its discretion in the interest of justice.
The court, however, questioned this argument, noting that under common law, counsel present in court are deemed to have notice of orders once delivered. It also indicated that the proper procedure would have been to file a formal application for an extension of time.
Counsel for Justice Torkonoo maintained that the directive was issued in the presence of the Attorney-General’s representatives, making claims of lack of service untenable. Nonetheless, the applicant did not oppose the request for an extension but sought leave to respond if granted.
The court subsequently admitted the state’s amended defence and granted the applicant seven days to file a response.
