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 Torkornoo.

The ruling allows the state’s response to be admitted despite missing the initial filing deadline. The court also gave Justice Torkornoo seven days to file a reply to the amended defence.

Justice Torkornoo initially filed the case at the Human Rights Court following her suspension under Article 146 proceedings of the 1992 Constitution, arguing that the process breached her fundamental human rights.

After her subsequent 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 directed the state to file its defence within 30 days.

However, the Attorney-General’s office, represented by Dr Srem Sai, failed to meet the deadline, which expired on March 1, 2026. The defence was later filed together with a request for the court to exercise its discretion to admit it.

Counsel for Justice Torkornoo opposed the move, arguing that the filing was out of time and that no formal application had been made for an extension. They urged the court to strike out the defence.

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 a hearing notice.

He told the court the defence was filed promptly once the state became aware of the order, noting that a public holiday had also intervened, and appealed for the court to act in the interest of justice.

The court questioned this explanation, stating that under common law practice, counsel present in court are deemed to have notice of orders once they are delivered. It further noted that the proper procedure would have been to file a formal application for an extension of time.

Counsel for Justice Torkornoo countered that the directive had been issued in the presence of the Attorney-General’s representatives, making claims of lack of service untenable.

Despite the objections, the applicant did not oppose the state’s request for an extension but asked for the opportunity to respond if it was granted.

The court subsequently granted the extension of time, admitted the state’s amended defence, and allowed Justice Torkornoo seven days to file her response.