Some high-profile Ghanaians have sought redress beyond the country’s judicial system by turning to the international courts on the African continent.
These individuals, drawn from diverse fields including politics, judiciary and music, have invoked the authority of the regional courts in their quest for justice, alleging violations of their fundamental rights within Ghana.
The ECOWAS Court of Justice, established in 2001, serves as a legal arm of the Economic Community of West African States and is mandated, among other things, to adjudicate cases of human rights violations among member states.
The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights is based in Arusha, Tanzania. It is a judicial body established by the African Union to ensure the protection of human rights on the continent. The court delivers binding judgments on compliance with the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
For some Ghanaians, these courts have become a beacon of hope where they believe justice can prevail when all local remedies appear to have failed.
Here are three notable Ghanaians who have turned to the regional court:
1. Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo
Suspended Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo on July 4, 2025, sued the government of Ghana over the ongoing processes on three petitions for her removal at the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice.
According to the Deputy Attorney General and Minister of Justice, Justice Srem Sai, who disclosed the suit, the embattled Chief Justice is seeking similar reliefs to those in her case that was unanimously dismissed by the Supreme Court, but this time at the ECOWAS Court.
He indicated that Justice Torkornoo is seeking a declaration by the ECOWAS Court that her suspension is unconstitutional.
“I can confirm that the Chief Justice – Her Ladyship, Justice Gertrude Torkornoo – has filed another court case, this time at the ECOWAS Community Court in Abuja, Nigeria, against the Republic.
“In the case, which was filed on July 4, Her Ladyship repeated the same allegations of human‑rights violations which are currently pending determination before our Supreme Court and also before our High Court in respect of the ongoing removal processes,” he wrote.
He added, “Essentially, Her Ladyship argues that by her suspension, she ‘has effectively been removed from her official capacity without a final determination, impairing her right to function and serve in a position she was constitutionally appointed to’.”
Meanwhile, the suspended Chief Justice has filed for a judicial review challenging the unanimous dismissal of her application to halt her suspension and the ongoing impeachment proceedings against her.
A five‑member panel of the court, presided over by the Acting Chief Justice, Paul Baffoe‑Bonnie, on Wednesday, May 28, 2025, ruled that Justice Torkornoo’s application had no merit and dismissed it.
Court documents shared by The Law Platform indicate that the suspended Chief Justice filed the judicial‑review application as far back as June 2025.
In her review application, Justice Torkornoo is seeking virtually the same reliefs as those requested in her earlier, dismissed application.
She is asking the court to declare all proceedings of the five‑member committee hearing the three petitions for her removal, chaired by Justice Gabriel Scott Pwamang, null and void, arguing that the process violates her human rights.
She also contends that she has not been served copies of the three petitions on which she is being tried, a failure she says renders the ongoing hearings “arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.”
2 Alfred Woyome
In July 2020, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights based in Arusha, Tanzania, dismissed an application for review filed by businessman Alfred Agbesi Woyome, in the case in which he was fighting a decision of the Supreme Court of Ghana that ordered the sale of his property.
In July, 2019, the Supreme Court of Ghana ordered the state to sell off Mr Woyome’s assets to offset the remaining GH₵47.2 million judgement debt wrongly paid him by the state six years ago.
Prior to the judgement, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights had stated that Mr Woyome’s right was not violated, neither was he discriminated against by the Supreme Court.
On March 4, 2020, Mr Woyome filed an application for review of the court’s initial judgement.
Among his prayer to the African Human Rights Court was a request for provisional measures which was accompanied by supporting affidavit and new evidence.
But in the judgement of the court delivered on June 26, 2020, the seven-member panel of judges said, “in light of the foregoing, the court finds that the supporting document adduced does not constitute new evidence which was not within the knowledge of the applicant at the time the initial judgment was delivered, as contemplated by Article 28(3) of the Protocol and Rule 67(1) of the Rules.”
The court noted that the supporting document submitted by Mr Woyome has no correlation with the court’s initial judgement, which is the subject of the review.
“In other words, it is not related to his claims that the truncation of proceedings and assumption of jurisdiction by the respondent’s State’s Supreme Court and the conduct of the review bench of the Supreme Court resulted in violations of his rights under Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter.”
3. Shatta Wale
In May 2025, the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice dismissed a lawsuit filed by popular Ghanaian musician Charles Nii Armah Mensah, widely known as Shatta Wale, over alleged discrimination by the Republic of Ghana and its Gaming Commission.
In its ruling, the court found that Shatta Wale failed to substantiate his claim that he was treated unfairly when an endorsement deal with a gaming company fell through. The judges noted that he did not identify the gaming company involved or provide any evidence of communication with the firm or proof that Ghanaian authorities intervened to block the deal.
The Claim
Shatta Wale contended that a prospective brand partnership was canceled due to a provision in Ghana’s advertising guidelines, which bars gaming companies from featuring celebrities in their promotions as a way of attracting the public to gambling. He argued that this amounted to discriminatory treatment based on his public profile and contravened his rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other international agreements.
Ghana’s Defense
The Government of Ghana denied any wrongdoing, arguing that the guidelines applied equally to all public figures, regardless of their fame or profession. Ghana further challenged the Court’s authority to overturn national laws and demanded that the artist show evidence of other celebrities in Ghana who had been allowed to engage in similar advertisements, which he could not do.
Court’s Findings
The Court emphasized that the artist did not demonstrate that he had entered into any formal relationship with the unnamed gaming company or that the state had issued directives against such a deal. Furthermore, he did not provide concrete examples of celebrities within Ghana who received preferential treatment under the same law.
Since the claim relied heavily on the existence and actions of a third party—the gaming company—which was neither named nor represented, the Court concluded that the case lacked the necessary merit for consideration.
The final judgment, delivered by a three-member panel including Justices Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves, Sengu Mohamed Koroma, and Dupe Atoki, upheld the Court’s jurisdiction but dismissed the case entirely.
KA
Watch the latest episode of Health Focus below:
GhanaWeb Special: The gold market that fuels galamsey
How social engineering hacks your mind and your bank account
