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 a human rights case brought by former Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo.
The ruling allows the state’s response to be admitted despite missing the initial filing deadline. The court also granted the applicant seven days to file a reply to the amended defence.
Justice Torkonoo first initiated the case at the Human Rights Court following her suspension under Article 146 proceedings of the 1992 Constitution, arguing that the process violated her fundamental human rights. After her subsequent dismissal, she amended her application before the ECOWAS court to challenge her removal.
The court had earlier permitted the amendment—despite objections from the Attorney-General—and directed the state to file its defence within 30 days.
However, the Attorney-General, represented by Dr Srem Sai, failed to meet the deadline, which expired on March 1, 2026, and later filed the defence alongside a request for the court’s discretion to admit it.
Counsel for Justice Torkonoo argued that the filing was out of time and that no formal application for an extension had been made, urging the court to strike it out.
In response, the Deputy Attorney-General contended that the state had not been served with the court’s directive and was unaware of the timeline until it received a hearing notice.
He told the court that the defence was filed promptly upon becoming aware of the order, despite the intervening public holiday, and appealed for the court to exercise its discretion in the interest of justice.
The court, however, questioned this position, noting that under common law practice, counsel present in court are deemed to have notice of orders once they are delivered.
It further indicated that the appropriate procedure would have been to file a formal application for an extension of time.
Counsel for Justice Torkonoo countered that the directive had been issued in the presence of the Attorney-General’s representatives, making claims of lack of service untenable.
Nonetheless, the applicant did not oppose the state’s oral request for an extension but sought leave to respond should the court grant the application.
The court subsequently granted the extension of time and admitted the state’s amended defence, while giving the applicant seven days to file a response.
