The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice has granted an application by Deputy Attorney-General Dr Justice Srem Sai to regularise a defence filed out of time in an ongoing human rights case involving former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo.
The ruling permits the state’s response to be admitted despite missing the initial deadline, while also giving Justice Torkornoo seven days to file a reply to the amended defence.
Justice Torkornoo first initiated 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 rights. After her subsequent dismissal, she amended her application before the regional court to challenge her removal.
The court had earlier granted leave for the amendment—despite objections from the Attorney-General—and directed the state to file its defence within 30 days.
However, the Attorney-General’s office failed to meet the March 1, 2026, deadline. The defence was later submitted alongside a request for the court to exercise its discretion and admit the late filing.
Lawyers for Justice Torkornoo opposed the move, arguing that the defence was filed out of time without a formal application for an extension, and urged the court to strike it out.
In response, Dr. Srem Sai maintained 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 explained that the defence was filed promptly thereafter and pointed to the intervention of a public holiday, appealing to the court to act in the interest of justice.
The court, however, questioned this justification, noting that under common law practice, counsel present in court is deemed to have notice of orders once delivered. It was further observed that the appropriate procedure would have been to file a formal application for an extension of time.
Counsel for Justice Torkornoo countered that representatives of the Attorney-General were present when the directive was issued, making claims of lack of service untenable.
Despite these objections, the applicant did not oppose the request for an extension but sought the opportunity to respond if it was granted.
The court ultimately exercised its discretion to allow the late filing, admitted the state’s amended defence, and granted Justice Torkornoo a seven-day window to file her response.
