Prof M T LADAN with the President of the ECOWAS COURT OF JUSTICE, HON JUSTICE RICARDO C M GONCALVES AT THE OPENING SESSION OF THE ECOWAS COURT OF JUSTICE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE HOLDING AT THE KING FAHD PALACE HOTEL IN DAKAR SENEGAL, BETWEEN 21st and 25th September, 2026..
THE QUEST FOR AN APPELLATE CHAMBER: - DEEPENING THE ECOWAS COURT'S JUDICIAL ARCHITECTURE
BY
PROFESSOR MUHAMMED TAWFIQ LADAN, Ph.D. PROFESSOR OF REGIONAL ECONOMIC INTEGRATION LAW AND PRACTICE IN AFRICA / IMMEDIATE PAST DIRECTOR GENERAL, NIGERIAN INSTITUTE OF ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES, ABUJA / LAGOS.
COORDINATING DIRECTOR OF AfCFTA LAW AND POLICY PROGRAMME DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE DG, NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE AND DEMOCRATIC STUDIES, ABUJA.
A PRESENTATION MADE AT THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF THE ECOWAS COURT OF JUSTICE ON THE THEME: - ECOWAS COURT OF JUSTICE AT THE CROSSROADS: - JUSTICE, INNOVATION, HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION AND THE FUTURE OF REGIONAL INTEGRATION IN WEST AFRICA.
ORGANIZED
BY
THE ECOWAS COURT OF JUSTICE, ABUJA
DATE: - 21st - 25th SEPTEMBER, 2026
VENUE: - KING FAHD PALACE HOTEL, DAKAR, SENEGAL.
THE QUEST FOR AN APPELLATE CHAMBER: - DEEPE NING THE ECOWAS COURT'S JUDICIAL ARCHITECTURE
BY
PROFESSOR MUHAMMED TAWFIQ LADAN, Ph.D.
INTRODUCTION
The ECOWAS Court of Justice, officially called the Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), is the judicial institution tasked with interpreting and applying ECOWAS Revised Treaty, Protocols, Conventions and other legal texts. It plays a vital role in promoting regional integration, safeguarding the rule of law and protecting human rights within the 12-member West African bloc.
The ECOWAS Court was established in 1991 by the Protocol A/P.1/7/91, with its establishment envisioned under the 1975 Treaty of Lagos, which created ECOWAS. However, it was not until January 2001 that the Court became operational with the swearing in of its pioneer judges in Bamako, Mali. Initially, the Court’s jurisdiction was limited, focusing on cases involving Member States or institutions of ECOWAS, particularly in disputes arising from the interpretation of the Treaty.
In 2005, the Court’s mandate expanded significantly with the Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05. This Protocol empowered the Court to hear cases from individuals on issues related to human rights violations, making the ECOWAS Court one of the few international courts where individuals have direct access without requiring their governments to represent them. This expansion underscored ECOWAS’s commitment to human rights, justice, and accountability.
Over the years, the ECOWAS Court has ruled on several landmark cases involving human rights, governance and accountability of member states.
Cases on freedom of expression and arbitrary detention have strengthened protection for journalists and activists.
Economic rights cases have addressed wrongful termination, labour rights, and government accountability in contractual obligations.
Women’s rights cases have addressed discrimination against women and gender stereotypes that negatively affect the rights of women, including dealing with issues of discrimination of girls in schools, slavery and forced marriage.
The 1991 Initial Protocol on the Court specifically provided that the Court shall be composed of seven (7) Independent Judges. The same Protocol also provided that the tenure of the judges shall be for five (5) years and renewable for another tenure of 5 years. However, in 2006 and 2018 respectively, there were amendments to this Initial Protocol which reduced the tenure of judges from five (5) years renewable for another term of five (5) years to four (4) years non-renewable, and the composition of the Court from seven (7) to five (5) judges.
The quest for an appellate chamber within the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice (ECCJ) is a central feature of current proposals aimed at "deepening" the court’s judicial architecture. This initiative seeks to transition the Court from a single-instance court, whose decisions are final and often accused of lacking thorough legal review, to a more robust, two-tiered judicial system.
The ECOWAS Court currently functions as a court of first and last resort, a "unified" structure created for economic dispute resolution that was later tasked with broad human rights mandates.
The Problem: The absence of an appellate process means that decisions, which are directly accessible to individuals and NGOs (without exhausting local remedies), can be final despite potential errors of law or fact.
The Proposal: To introduce an Appellate Division to review decisions of the First Instance Division, ensuring legal certainty, consistency, and compliance with international human rights standards regarding the right to a second-level review.
Current Status: The idea is actively promoted by legal practitioners, ECOWAS officials, and scholars to improve the quality of justice and legitimacy.
The push for an appellate chamber is driven by several factors:
Legal Legitimacy and Quality Assurance: An appellate chamber would address concerns about "new wine in old skins"—applying a human rights mandate to a court structure designed for commercial disputes. It provides a mechanism to correct errors of law and fact.
The Right to Appeal: Ensures compliance with international human rights standards, such as Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which implies a right to second-level review.
Consistency in Jurisprudence: Prevents contradictory rulings by a single-instance bench, creating a reliable, harmonized body of regional law.
Addressing Compliance Concerns: A more thorough, peer-reviewed decision may increase legitimacy and, consequently, improve compliance by Member States, which often challenge the, at times, inconsistent or overly broad rulings of the current structure.
It is against this background that this paper seeks to achieve the following objectives: -
To examine the context and issues for consideration in deepening ECOWAS Courts' Judicial architecture;
To provide comparative lessons for ECOWAS Court of Justice from regional courts such as the East African Court of Justice (EACJ), the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU), and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR); and
to conclude with Strategic actions roadmap for the ECOWAS Court of Justice.
1. DEEPENING THE ECOWAS COURT'S JUDICIAL ARCHITECTURE CONTEXT AND ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice (ECCJ) operates with a streamlined structure consisting of five independent judges appointed by the Authority of Heads of State and Government for a non-renewable four-year term. Operating from its headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria, The Court functions as the principal legal organ of the Community.
The five-judge passed elects a President and a Vice-President from among themselves to serve a two-year tenure. The current judicial composition includes: - President from Cape Verde, Vice-President from Sierra Leone, other three members of the College of Judges are from Nigeria, Ghana and Cote D’Ivoire.
The management of the Court is made up of the President and the Vice President, elected by the College of Judges. They are responsible for the Court’s daily administration, operations, and overall institutional development, ensuring that it functions smoothly and fulfils its mandate effectively. Its functions include administrative oversight and resource management, judicial and case management, coordination with ECOWAS institutions and Member States, policy development and strategic planning, financial management and budgeting, public relations and communications. They also oversee the programmes of the departments of the Court.
The office of the President of the ECOWAS Court of Justice plays a vital role in guiding the Court’s judicial and administrative functions, ensuring that it fulfils its mandate of ensuring the observance of the rule of law and equity, promoting justice, human rights, and regional integration across West Africa. The office of the President provides judicial leadership, administrative oversight, case management and coordination, policy development and strategic planning and promoting public awareness. The office of the President ensures that the Court operates with transparency, accountability and responsiveness to the needs of the region. Through its functions, the Office upholds the Court’s mission, vision and core values, which includes providing accessible justice, protect human rights and contribute to regional stability and integration within West Africa.
The Office of the Vice President of the ECOWAS Court of Justice supports the Court’s mission by assisting the President in judicial, administrative, and representational responsibilities. The Vice President works closely with the President to ensure the efficient functioning of the Court and contributes to strategic initiatives that promote justice and integration across the ECOWAS region. The functions of the Office of the Vice President include, judicial support and case oversight, administrative collaboration, representation and external relations, strategic planning and policy support and public engagement and outreach. The Office of the Vice President plays a crucial supportive role in ensuring the effective functioning and responsiveness of the ECOWAS Court of Justice. Through judicial, administrative and representational duties, the Vice President reinforces the Court’s commitment to justice, human rights and regional integration, strengthening its impact across the ECOWAS region.
The Chambers of the Judges at the ECOWAS Court of Justice are essential to the Court’s mission of providing justice, upholding human rights, and ensuring the fair application of ECOWAS laws across member States. Each judge’s chamber is responsible for handling cases, conducting legal research, and contributing to the development of regional jurisprudence within West Africa. The functions of the judges chambers include, case adjudication and decision-making, legal research and analysis, drafting judgments and rulings, collaborative deliberations, advisory role, outreach and capacity building. The Chambers of Judges are foundational to the ECOWAS Court of Justice, ensuring that cases are handled with professionalism, diligence and impartiality. Through their legal expertise and commitment to justice, the judges uphold the rule of law, strengthen human rights protection and advance the Court’s role as a pillar of regional governance and integration in West Africa.
The Office of the Chief Registrar of the ECOWAS Court of Justice is crucial in managing the Court’s administrative and procedural operations. The Chief Registrar as a senior director, reports directly to the President of the Court and ensures that cases are processed efficiently and that the Court functions smoothly to fulfil its mission of justice and regional integration across ECOWAS member States. The Office of the Chief Registrar is responsible for case management and Court proceedings, record-keeping and documentation, custody of the Seal of the Court, liaison and communication, supporting judicial deliberations, assisting in policy development and implementation. The Office of the Chief Registrar is essential to the ECOWAS Court, ensuring that cases are processed with efficiency and transparency. Through effective case management, administrative oversight and clear communication, the Chief Registrar upholds the Court’s operational integrity and accessibility. This role is fundamental in supporting the Court’s mission to deliver justice, uphold human rights and foster regional integration across West Africa.
Figure 1 : - Structure of the ECCJ
1.1 A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF ITS ADEQUACY AND LIMITATIONS OF THE CURRENT JUDICIAL STRUCTURE OF THE ECOWAS COURT OF JUSTICE
The judicial structure of the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice in Abuja is highly progressive, particularly in its mandate to hear individual human rights complaints directly. However, as of May 2026, its structural adequacy remains severely limited by a lack of an appellate mechanism, a shortage of judicial personnel, and chronic defiance of its judgments by Member States.
1.1.1 Strengths and Adequacy
Direct Access & Broad Mandate: The 2005 Supplementary Protocol transformed the Court into a human rights tribunal that can entertain suits directly from individuals and corporate bodies.
Non-Exhaustion of Local Remedies: Unlike most international tribunals (such as the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights), the ECOWAS Court does not require plaintiffs to exhaust domestic judicial remedies. This allows victims of systemic abuses to bypass overburdened or politically compromised national courts.
Regional Integration: As the principal judicial organ of ECOWAS, the Court standardizes the interpretation of Community texts, serving as a Public Service Tribunal, an Arbitration body, and a regional Human Rights forum.
1.1.2 Core Limitations and Structural Deficiencies
Absence of an Appellate Structure: The Court operates as a court of first and final instance for human rights claims. Its finality—coupled with the lack of an appellate division—raises concerns regarding the robustness of jurisprudence, as litigants have no recourse to challenge erroneous rulings.
Low Enforcement Rate: The greatest limitation of the Court's structure is its lack of an independent enforcement mechanism. Under Article 15 of the Revised Treaty, enforcement is left entirely to Member States via designated national authorities. As of early 2026, roughly 70 to 80 percent of the Court's judgments remain unexecuted, with Nigeria historically holding the largest backlog of pending cases.
Constrained Human Resources: The judicial complement is limited to just five judges serving a single, non-renewable four-year term. This small number restricts the Court's ability to split into multiple chambers, directly contributing to case backlogs.
Jurisdictional Tension: While the Court is situated in Abuja, the deference shown to it by Member States has been inconsistent, frequently leading to non-compliance when the Court's rulings clash with national political or security interests.
1.1.3 Strategic Outlook
To address these structural shortcomings, the Court launched its 2026–2030 Strategic Plan. The framework primarily seeks to improve judicial efficiency, advocate for domestic enforcement frameworks across Member States, and deepen collaboration with regional civil society and national judiciaries.
1.2 ANALYSIS OF THE KEY STRENGTHS AND ADEQUACY OF THE ECCJ JUDICIAL STRUCTURE
The ECOWAS Community Court of Justice (ECCJ) stands as the principal legal organ of the subregion, headquartered in Abuja, Nigeria. Its Judicial Structure operates under a hybrid mandate and is primarily strengthened by direct individual access and binding judgements, though it is challenged by enforcement limitations.
Its key strengths therefore lies in the following: -
Direct access for individuals: - Unlike many regional courts, the ECCJ's Supplementary Protocol grants direct access to individuals, corporate bodies, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to seek redress for human rights violations.
Broad and Flexible Jurisdiction: - The Court is a “four-in-One” institution, functioning simultaneously as an administrative tribunal for ECOWAS, a human wights Court, an arbitration panel, and an inter-State dispute resolver.
Lack of time bars: - The Court has ruled that statutes of limitations do not apply to human rights violations claims, accommodating the doctrine of continuing violations.
Binding decisions: - The Court's judgements are legally binding on Member States, Community institutions, and individuals.
On the other hand, the ECCJ's adequacy and structural challenges lie in the following:
Enforcement gaps: - Despite delivering landmark judgements, the Court lacks coercive enforcement powers and relies heavily on Member States' designated national authorities (DNAs) to implement its decisions, which can lead to compliance delays.
Lack of an explicitly dedicated Exhaustive Regional Human Rights Regime: - Because the ECCJ interprets general international human rights frameworks, like the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, rather than a Strictly defined, designated ECOWAS human rights treaty, its human rights mandate remains legally indeterminate. Unlike the Inter-American Court / Commission on Human Rights, and the Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU), with dedicated American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) respectively, the ECCJ derives much of its vast human rights dockets/Cases from an implicit, generalized mandate over all human rights instruments ratified by Member States, tied to Community integration treaties. Hence the ACHR and the ECHR form an exhaustive regional human rights regime explicitly dedicated to interpreting and applying established human rights treaties in the America and EU.
Structural Streamlining: - Over the years, the ECCJ's structural Composition has been downsized from seven to five Judges and tenures were limited to single four-year term, which arguably reduce the judicial capacity necessary to handle growing complex litigations in West, Africa.
As at May 2026, the ECCJ's judicial framework is navigating a major paradigm shift. The Court recently launched its Strategic Plan for 2026-2030, titled "Justice 2030", to systematically tackle historical adequacy issues. This framework plan is specifically geared towards expanding access to Justice, reducing case backlogs, increasing regional legal harmonization, and accelerating digital transformation to enhance the Court's institutional influence.
1.2.1 Relevance of ECCJ: - From A Limited Jurisdiction To A Four -Fold Mandate Court – 2005 To 2026: - Achievements Recorded So Far.
Operational efficiency and effectiveness in the discharge of its mandate.
Compared with other regional economic integration courts / tribunals in Africa, in terms of impactful deliverable outputs or performance appraisal consistency, boldness, though in some cases very controversial, richness in human rights Jurisprudence and above all, demonstrable maturity, it is perceived by many analysts as the strongest and most independent of all in Africa.
Since the amendment of the Protocol in 2005 till May 2026, the Court has received a total of 775 filed cases, delivered 147 rulings and 492 judgments, most of which relate to the human rights mandate of the Court. It is gladdening that the Court continues to receive more complains on a daily basis. There is therefore no gainsaying that the Court plays a very vital role in the protection of human rights in the sub-region.
The Court recognises that despite these achievements, many ECOWAS citizens are unaware of its existence and are therefore unable to access the Court for the protection of their rights. For this reason, it has put in place strategies for enhanced visibility. In this wise, the Court has intensified efforts to enhance awareness of its existence through its external sessions, the publication of its judgments both online and in the Law Report for dissemination within the sub-region and beyond. The Court also undertakes sensitization missions to Member States to raise awareness of key stakeholders about its work.
Furthermore, the Court is in the process of creating a Legal Aid Fund to facilitate access to justice for victims of human rights abuses that cannot afford legal representation. When established, the Legal Aid Fund will be a milestone achievement for the ECOWAS sub region.
Additionally, The Court collaborates with international organisations to improve on the protection of human rights, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees being one of such.
Unfortunately, as is the case with other victims of human rights violation, the lack of awareness are amongst other factors inhibiting refugees, migrants, internally displaced persons and stateless persons to petition the Court as it concerns the violation of these rights by Member States.
This accounts for the sad situation where the Court has not yet been seized of any complain of violations affecting the rights of Environmental and Climate Change-induced migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons, stateless persons and persons at risk of statelessness.
ECCJ’s established Unique Human Rights Jurisprudence
Although the ECCJ became globally popular more as a human rights court than as an administrative tribunal, or Arbitration Tribunal or a Community Court of Justice, because most of the above judicial statistics on its achievements were human rights based and not on advancing its core mandate of regional economic integration.
Nevertheless, the Court's success story lies in the body of human rights jurisprudence established from these cases, which reinforces the view that respect for human rights and rule of law provides a foundation for durable peace and security as well as sustainable development.
For the past twenty (20) years out of twenty-two of its operationalisation, the Court has charted a viable path for the protection of human rights in the region. It has brought renewed hope and optimism within the African human rights system, and position itself as a pivotal instrument in the continent's quest for regional economic integration, peace, security, unity, good governance and sustainable development.
As the Court continues to grow and deliver more judgements, its impact as a mechanism for the advancement of human rights, good governance and the rule of law in the region has become apparent.
Developing its own human rights Jurisprudence, the Court, applying Article 4 (g) of the 1993 Revised ECOWAS Treaty, carefully and boldly delineated its scope of human rights Jurisdiction based on certain guiding principles.
First, the Court will not admit of any application which does not clearly indicate the alleged human rights violation. In Moussa Leo Keita’s case, the Court held that even if it were competent to adjudicate in cases of human rights violation, the applicant had not indicated any proof of a characteristic violation of a fundamental human right.
Second, the Court will continue to uphold the supra-nationality of ECOWAS introduced by the Revised Treaty into its decision making for the realization of Community integration objectives. Accordingly, the court has been holding Member States accountable for their Treaty obligations and has refused to be constrained by the domestic laws of Member States, including national constitutions that are inconsistent with their Treaty obligations. The Court’s Jurisprudence on the supra-nationality of ECOWAS and the ECOWAS Court of Justice in Musa Saidykhan, SERAP, Mukhtar Ibrahim Aminu and Peter David, is anchored on Articles 9 (4), 12 (3) and 15 (4) of the 1993 Revised ECOWAS Treaty and cemented by the provisions of Articles 1-7 of the Supplementary Protocol Amending the Revised Treaty, especially, the new Article 9 on the new legal regime of the Community earlier discussed above.
Third, triggering Article 10 (d) of the Supplementary Protocol, 2005, on access to the Community Court by individuals on application for relief for human rights violation, the Court’s emphatic Jurisprudence is that exhaustion of local remedies is NOT a requirement under the Community Law for human rights litigation. Neither is the lack of provision for it, a lacuna in the law that the Court can fill in, using its Judicial discretion.
Fourth, notwithstanding the rationale behind the requirement of exhaustion of local remedies, the ECOWAS Court, in its Jurisprudence on the application of the conditions in Article 10 (d) (ii) of the 2005 Supplementary Protocol, has ruled the case of Valentine Ayika v. Republic of Liberia, admissible notwithstanding the fact it was alleged to be pending before the Supreme Court of a Member State (in this case Liberia). But in a related case of Mme Azieblevi Yovo et 31 Antres v. Societe Togo Telecom et Etat Togolais, the Court declined Jurisdiction on the ground that the matter was previously instituted before the OHADA Court , which is an international court within the condition of Article 10 (d) ii.
Fifth, based on relevant authorities and the need to enhance access to the Community Court for Justice and human rights protection in the African context, the court’s Jurisprudence favours duly registered NGOs under national laws of ECOWAS Member States and enjoying observer status with ECOWAS institutions, as having the right to institute actions for human rights violations, especially public interest litigations involving group rights.
Sixth, while clearly the Community Court does not have appellate Jurisdiction over the decisions of national courts, it has correctly emphasized its international character within the scope of its human rights Jurisdiction. Accordingly, it has declined Jurisdiction in an action by an individual against another individual for human rights violations; and has dismissed applications for human rights violations instituted by or against limited liability companies due to lack of Jurisdiction. The Court has rightly ruled that only Member States and Institutions of the Community can be sued before the court for human rights violations.
Finally, for the progressive realization of the aims and objectives of the regional economic integration agenda for West Africa, the Community Court is mandated, inter alia, to adjudicate on any dispute relating to the interpretation, application and legality of the ECOWAS Community Law, and the failure by Member States to honour their obligations thereunder.
1.2.2 Trend of ECCJ Jurisprudence delineating the nature and Scope of its Human Rights Mandate
No Catalogue and Delimitation of human rights mandate
The human rights mandate of the ECOWAS Court of Justice is still evolving and it is a subset of African human rights system. The ECOWAS human rights regime is developing at a fast pace and has very distinct features that have set it apart from other regional human rights systems. The most distinctive features are that it is fluid and indeterminate with no catalogue of rights of its own and that there is no requirement for exhaustion of local remedies as a condition for victims of human rights violations to access the court.
The non-requirement of exhaustion of local remedies, contrary to the rule of customary International law, which may be referred to as the ECOWAS model, has proved to be very controversial and has attracted the curiosity of scholars. It has however proved to be very beneficial to the Court and victims of human rights violations, who now access the Court directly without the need to exhaust local remedies. This is mainly responsible for the increasing number of cases of human rights violations lodged before the Court.
No specific applicable Evidence Provided
The ECOWAS Court of Justice does not have a specific text in respect of evidence. Although Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the texts of the Court do not have specific provisions in respect of the applicable rules of evidence with the exception of provisions in its Protocol and Rules on the production of documents and the summoning and examination of witnesses and experts (Articles 43-49). The Court has therefore allowed the practice of International Tribunals in respect of evidence.
Human Right Jurisdiction of the Court cannot be ousted by the national Constitutions/domestic Laws of member States/ Non-domestication of Treaties
The court regards the constitution of a Member State as part of its law and is not obliged to refer to it as the Court is not concerned with the existing hierarchy of the national judicial order. The Court will therefore not allow a State to rely on its constitution to avoid its Treaty obligations, or obligations under legally binding treaty under International law. Therefore, concerning its human rights jurisdiction, the Court relies on its protocol and not on the constitutions of Member States.
In Linda Gomez & Ors v. Republic of the Gambia Suit No. ECW/CCJ/APP/18/12), the Court held as follows:
“Thus, the human rights jurisdiction of this Court cannot be Ousted by the constitution or other domestic legislations of ECOWAS Member State. This Court is empowered by the Provisions of article 4(g) of the Revised Treaty of ECOWAS to apply the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights in determining the human rights cases that come before it. Article 19 of the Protocol on the Court as amended also empowers this Court to apply the provisions of Article 38 of the Statutes of the international Court of Justice. There is no doubt that these provisions have an international character and are applicable irrespective of the domestic legislations of Member States of ECOWAS”.
1.3 THE CASE FOR AN APPELLATE CHAMBER FOR THE ECCJ: - JUDICIAL COHERENCE, SAFEGUARDS, INSTITUTIONAL LEGITIMACY AND LIMITATIONS.
As of May 2026, the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice (ECCJ) based in Abuja, Nigeria, serves as a court of first and last resort without an appellate mechanism. The absence of an appellate chamber limits litigants' rights and complicates the court's integration into the regional legal framework.
The Key problem is the finality, binding decision and lack of appeal: - as a single-tier court, decisions are final, binding under Article 15(4) Revised Treaty, allowing no room for error corrections on appeal.
The case for an appellate chamber rest on four key pillars:
1. Judicial Coherence
Consistent Jurisprudence: The ECCJ's expanding mandate touches on human rights, treaty interpretation, and potential arbitral/trade disputes. A dedicated appellate chamber would ensure uniform interpretation of community law across the 12 member states, preventing conflicting judgments from single-judge panels or varying compositions.
Harmonized Standards: It would provide a structured mechanism to develop a stable body of regional jurisprudence, addressing disparities in judgments (e.g., inconsistencies in reparations awarded in similar situations).
2. Safeguards
Correcting Errors of Law: A fundamental tenet of justice is the right to appeal. An appellate chamber provides a vital safeguard against judicial fallibility, ensuring that manifest errors of law or fact can be corrected before they become binding regional precedents.
Access to Justice: The lack of an appellate mechanism currently denies litigants—especially those in human rights suits—the procedural due process of having their case reviewed by a higher tribunal.
3. Institutional Legitimacy
Increased Patronage: Litigants and member states may hesitate to submit complex economic or commercial disputes to the ECCJ if they cannot appeal adverse decisions. A functional appellate structure enhances the perceived fairness, transparency, and authoritativeness of the court.
Supranational Evolution: Establishing an appellate tier aligns the ECCJ with other mature international tribunals like the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) or the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This bolsters its credibility on the global stage.
4. Limitations & Challenges
Political Will and Treaty Reform: Establishing an appellate chamber requires amending the ECCJ's constitutive protocols (such as Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05). This requires political consensus among ECOWAS Heads of State, which can be difficult to secure.
Financial Constraints: ECOWAS has previously downsized the number of ECCJ judges from seven to five due to operational and financial considerations. Funding a secondary tier of judges and maintaining expanded registries poses a significant fiscal challenge to the regional body.
The Enforcement Crisis: The ECCJ's current enforcement rate as revealed by Table 1 below is approximately 25.32% or 39 out of 154 Judgements delivered between 2005 and December 2025, across member states. Critics argue that establishing an appellate chamber may add procedural layers without solving the foundational problem of getting member states to domesticate and obey regional judgments. This argument is supported by the fact that, as at December 2025, only ten Member States (Nigeria, Gambia, Senegal, Guinea-Bissau, Togo, Ghana, Guinea, Cote D’Ivoire, Sierra Leone, and Liberia), had appointed National Competent Authorities (NCAs) for the enforcement of ECCJ’s Judgements between 2011 and 2024. Out of the 12 Member States, only Benin and Cape Verde are yet to appoint their NCAs, that are largely Attorneys General and Ministers of Justice, as shown on Table 2 below.
Case Volume and Complexity: - An increasing number of cases, including complex human rights violations, has overwhelmed the current structure, with 112 pending cases reports in late December 2025.
Table 1: - ECCJ’s Enforcement of Judgements, 2005 to December 2025.
MEMBER STATES
S/N
MEMBER STATE
NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS
1
REPUBLIC OF BENIN
-
3
REPUBLIC OF CABO VERDE
-
4
REPUBLIC OF COTE D’IVOIRE
-
5
REPUBLIOC OF GHANA
-
6
REPUBLIC OF GUINEA BISSAU
-
7
REPUBLIC OF GUINEE
-
8
REPUBLIC OF LIBERIA
1
11
FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA
10
12
REPUBLIC OF SENEGAL
3
13.REPUBLIC OF SIERRA LEONE
14.REPUBLIC OF THE GAMBIA
4
15.REPUBLIC OF TOGO
1? (partially enforced)
TOTAL
19 +1?
ECOWAS INSTITUTIONS
S/N
INSTITUTION
NUMBER OF CASES
1.
ECOWAS COMMISSION
14
2.ECOWAS PARLIAMENT
3.ECOWAS BANK FOR INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT (EBID)
4.West African Monetary Agency (WAMA)
5.WEST AFRICAN POWER POOL (WAPP)
OTHERS
1Peter David v. Ambassador Ralph
TOTAL: 38+1?
MEMBER STATES: 19 +1?
OTHERS: 19
Table 2: - Appointed National Competent Authorities for Enforcement of Judgments of The Ecowas Court
S/N
MEMBER STATE
APPOINTED AUTHORITY
DATE OF APPOINTMENT
1.Federal Republic of Nigeria
Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice
09/06/2011
2.Togolese Republic
Garde des Sceaux, Ministre de la Justice
06/06/2018
3.Republic of Ghana
Attorney-General and Minister of Justice
11/06/2020
4.Republic of Guinee
Monsieur Daye Kaba,
Chef du Greffe de la Cour Supreme.
5.Republic of Cote d’Ivoire
Procureur General pres de la Cour d’Appel de Abidjan
12/03/2022
6.Republic of The Gambia
Attorney-General and Minister of Justice
07/02/2023
7.Republic of Senegal
Le Ministère de la Justice
06/06/2023
8.Republic of Guinee Bissau
Direcção-Geral da Política de Justiça do Ministério da Justiça e dos Direitos Humanos
24/07/2023
9.Republic of Sierra Leone
Attorney General and Minister of Justice of the Republic of Sierra Leone
13/11/2023
10.Republic of Liberia
Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of the Republic of Liberia, Cllr. N. Oswald Tweh
05/08/2024
1.4 COMPARATIVE LESSONS FROM REGIONAL COURTS
The debate draws heavily on the structures of other regional courts that possess appellate capabilities:
East African Court of Justice (EACJ): Considered a primary model. The EACJ has a clear two-tier structure: a First Instance Division and an Appellate Division. This allows for the correction of errors of law and fact, enhancing the perceived quality and acceptance of judgments.
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU): The CJEU uses a specialized structure where the General Court acts as the first instance for many cases, with appeals on points of law heard by the Court of Justice. Recent 2024 reforms further strengthened this, showing a shift towards optimizing workload management through specialized chambers.
Inter-American System: While different from a pure appellate structure, it uses a commission and a court mechanism that allows for comprehensive review, ensuring that human rights standards are applied uniformly across nations.
Lessons for ECOWAS: The comparison highlights that a two-tier system improves legal certainty and encourages compliance.
1.4.1. Issues for Consideration
As ECOWAS moves toward this restructuring, several challenges must be addressed:
Resource Intensiveness: Establishing an appellate chamber requires significant financial and human resources, which are currently limited, as noted in the TrustAfrica Advocacy Brief.
Amendment of Protocols: Setting up an appellate body requires amending the 1991 Protocol and 2005 Supplementary Protocol, which takes substantial political will and time.
Defining Scope of Appeal: Determinations must be made on whether the appellate chamber will handle both matters of law and fact, or strictly points of law (similar to the CJEU model).
Compliance Mechanisms: An appellate chamber will not solve the issue of non-compliance. Reform must also include strengthening the capacity of National Authorities to implement judgments, as discussed at the 2025 ECOWAS Court Meeting on Compliance.
1.4.2 The East African Court of Justice (EACJ)
The Appellate Division of the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) is a critical component of the EAC’s judicial arm, designed to ensure legal finality and uphold the rule of law within the East African Community. Established in 2007 (though initially planned in 2001) as a response to political objections to initial rulings, it serves as the final arbiter of community law. As of 2026, it operates under the Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community to uphold the principles of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.
Jurisdictional Mandate
Final Appellate Jurisdiction: The Division hears appeals from the First Instance Division of the EACJ regarding the interpretation and application of the EAC Treaty.
Scope: It handles disputes arising from the Treaty, such as human rights violations (under the Katabazi doctrine), trade/monetary union disputes, and disputes involving EAC staff.
Limitation: It does not have appellate jurisdiction over decisions of national courts of partner states; it exclusively reviews cases originating from the EACJ First Instance Division.
No Exhaustion of Local Remedies: Unlike many international courts, the EACJ does not require individuals to exhaust domestic remedies before filing cases, though a two-month limitation applies to filing references.
Structure and Operations
Composition: The Division consists of five judges, including the President of the Court, who are appointed by the Summit of EAC Heads of State.
Location: The Court is situated in Arusha, Tanzania, though it holds sessions periodically.
Sub-Registries: To improve accessibility, sub-registries are established in all capitals of partner states, allowing litigants to file cases without traveling to Arusha.
Procedure: Cases are filed, heard, and decided through a collaborative, deliberative process aimed at upholding high judicial standards.
Impact
Strengthening Rule of Law: The Appellate Division has solidified the EACJ’s role as a vital mechanism for human rights protection, particularly when national courts are viewed as weak or politically compromised.
Jurisprudential Development: Its rulings (e.g., in Katabazi and later cases) have established that human rights violations by partner states constitute breaches of the Treaty, forcing states to respect democratic principles.
Regional Integration: It plays a foundational role in interpreting community law, influencing national law, and harmonizing legal frameworks across Partner States.
Challenges
Low Compliance Rates: Similar to other African regional courts, the EACJ faces challenges regarding member states complying with its judgments.
Two-Month Limitation Period: The Appellate Division strictly enforces the two-month time limit for filing cases, which often leads to the dismissal of human rights cases on technical grounds, a more restrictive approach than the First Instance Division.
Funding and Autonomy: Inadequate funding and limited political support from the Council of Ministers can hinder its independence and operational efficiency.
Delayed Compliance: Sometimes decisions by the court are not implemented, prompting the need for stronger mechanisms to compel compliance.
Lessons for ECOWAS Court of Justice (CCJ)
The paper suggests the ECOWAS Court of Justice, which handles human rights, economic, and administrative matters together, could learn from the EACJ’s two-tier system to improve its own, often overwhelmed, single-instance structure.
Adoption of a Two-Tier Structure: The ECOWAS Court, which currently operates as a single unit, could benefit from adopting a First Instance Division and an Appellate Division to ensure quality control and finality in legal matters.
Specialization: Creating a separate Appellate Division would allow the CCJ to develop more consistent jurisprudence on complex human rights and community law cases, similar to the EACJ's development of the Katabazi doctrine.
Handling Compliance: Like the EACJ, the ECOWAS Court must continuously lobby for greater commitment from member states for the enforcement of judgments, which is crucial for the court’s legitimacy.
Proactive Jurisprudence: The CCJ can emulate the EACJ’s bold approach in interpreting its treaty as a tool for protecting fundamental rights, rather than merely treating it as a trade-focused agreement.
The analysis of the EACJ, along with regarding African regional courts, emphasizes that for such bodies to effectively protect rights and advance regional integration, they must be empowered through clear mandates, adequate funding, and, most importantly, the compliance of member states.
1.4.3 The Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU)
The Appellate Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (specifically, the Court of Justice hearing appeals from the General Court) acts as the final arbiter on points of law within the EU legal order. It ensures the uniformity, consistency, and development of EU law, serving as a model for regional courts like the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice.
Jurisdictional Mandate
Limitation to Points of Law: Appeals are limited to points of law only such as lack of competence, breach of procedure, or infringement of EU law by the General Court.
Final Appellate Instance: It hears appeals against decisions of the General Court (GC).
Exclusion of Facts: The appellate chamber generally does not re-examine evidence or findings of fact made by the General Court.
Admissibility Mechanism: In certain cases, appeals are only allowed to proceed if they raise a significant issue for the unity or consistency of EU law.
Structure and Operations
Composition: The Court of Justice is composed of one judge from each Member State, ensuring diverse representation, assisted by Advocates General.
Chambers: Cases are assigned to chambers (usually 3 or 5 judges), or the Grand Chamber (15 judges) for critical issues.
Procedure:
Appeals: Lodged within 2 months of the General Court decision.
Procedure: Involves written submissions and sometimes an oral hearing.
Advocate General: A formal, independent opinion is provided to guide the Court.
Outcome: If the appeal is well-founded, the Court of Justice sets aside the General Court's decision. It can either give final judgment itself or refer the case back to the General Court.
Impact
Uniformity: Ensures that EU law is applied identically across all Member States.
Constitutional Role: Develops the "constitutional" principles of the EU, such as direct effect and supremacy, which are essential for integration.
Rule of Law: Protects the independence of national judiciaries and ensures Member State compliance.
Institutional Accountability: Subjects actions of EU institutions (Commission, Council) to intense legal scrutiny.
Challenges
Workload: Managing the high volume of cases to avoid excessive delays, which has led to reforms.
Balancing National vs. EU law: Navigating conflicts with national supreme or constitutional courts.
Separation of Facts and Law: The distinction between points of fact (resolved by the lower court) and points of law can sometimes be complex.
Lessons for the ECOWAS Court of Justice
The ECOWAS Court faces different challenges, particularly a 70% non-compliance rate with its decisions.
Appellate Structure: Unlike the CJEU, the ECOWAS Court is a single-instance court. Implementing a formal appellate chamber could enhance the finality and perceived legitimacy of its decisions, as shown by the ECJ's comparative role.
Strengthening Enforcement: The CJEU's success is linked to its ability to influence national systems to enforce its rulings. The ECOWAS Court is working on this through bilateral meetings and aiming to emulate such compliance mechanisms.
Preliminary Ruling Mechanism: Adopting an ECJ-like preliminary ruling procedure would allow national courts to refer questions to the ECOWAS Court, fostering cooperation rather than competition with national jurisdictions.
Independence: The CJEU’s focus on the independence of judges from national governments is a key factor for the ECOWAS Court, which often rules against state actions.
Table 3: - Comparative Lessons from Other Regional Courts
Tabular Comparative Lessons from Regional Courts
The ECOWAS Court can draw significant lessons from other regional courts, which have structured their judicial systems to include appellate or review mechanisms to ensure legal certainty.
Regional Court
Appellate Structure
Lessons for ECOWAS
European Union (CJEU)
Two-tier system: General Court (First Instance) + Court of Justice (Appellate).
Allows for specialization in complex cases and provides a formal review mechanism to ensure consistency in EU law.
East African Court of Justice (EACJ)
Two-tier system: First Instance Division + Appellate Division.
Provides a "safety net" for litigants, increasing trust in the judicial process.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Single Court: Limited appeal; focuses on "review" by the same court in specific circumstances.
High compliance is driven by a strong Commission acting as a "screening" filter, though it is a single-instance system.
African Court on Human & Peoples' Rights
Single Court: No formal appellate body, but allows for interpretation/revision of judgments.
Highlights the need for a separate appellate chamber rather than relying on internal review, which can be limited.
2.0 THE ROADMAP AND STRATEGIC ACTIONS: - BUILDING MEMBER STATES CONSENSUS AND ECOWAS INSTITUTIONS ' SUPPORT FOR ECCJ APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Building consensus among Member States and securing the support of ECOWAS institutions for the appellate jurisdiction of the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice (ECCJ) requires a phased roadmap focused on addressing regional sovereignty concerns, harmonizing legal frameworks, and demonstrating the ECCJ's value as a regional stabilizer.
Phase 1: Institutional Alignment & Capacity Building
Drafting Protocols: Finalizing clear, detailed drafts of the Supplementary Protocol that outline the structure, scope, and operational procedures of the ECCJ's appellate divisions.
Stakeholder Buy-in: Engaging key ECOWAS bodies specifically the Authority of Heads of State and Government, the Council of Ministers, and the ECOWAS Commission—to align the appellate project with the bloc's broader regional integration goals.
Leveraging the Strategic Plan: Utilizing the court's 2026–2030 Strategic Plan to advocate for institutional independence and procedural efficiency.
Phase 2: Strategic Actions for Member State Consensus
Addressing Sovereignty Concerns: Assuring Member States that an appellate layer will respect national legal jurisdictions and avoid usurping the authority of domestic Supreme Courts.
Peer-Learning and Sensitization: Holding targeted, high-level dialogues and judicial retreats (such as those sponsored by the ECCJ) with regional Ministers of Justice and Attorneys General to build trust in the appellate process.
Highlighting the Need for Review: Emphasizing legal arguments by regional experts that establishing an appellate mechanism will improve the acceptance of the ECCJ's judgments and reduce criticism regarding the lack of supervisory oversight.
Phase 3: Legislative Adoption & Implementation
Formal Ratification: Securing the required signatures and ratifications from the Authority of Heads of State and Government to legally enact the appellate mandate.
Resource Allocation: Working with the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice and budget committees to ensure adequate funding, infrastructure, and staffing (such as appointing appellate judges) are in place.
3.0RECOMMENDATIONS: - AMENDING THE REVISED ECOWAS TREATY AND ECCJ’S CONSTITUTIVE PROTOCOLS AND NEW SUB-RULES OF PROCEDURE
Creating the proposed Appellate Chamber for the ECOWAS Court of Justice requires amending the ECOWAS Revised Treaty and the Court's constitutive protocols.
The specific legal instruments and their provisions that require amendment include:
The ECOWAS Revised Treaty (1993)
Article 15 (The Community Court of Justice): Must be amended to formally recognize an appellate level or structure within the court, altering its status as a court of strictly "first and last resort".
Protocol A/P1/7/91 on the Community Court of Justice
Article 3 (Composition): Needs revision to increase the total number of judges, allowing for a split between first-instance and appellate panels without causing quorum issues or administrative delays.
Article 9 (Jurisdiction): Must be amended to define the appellate jurisdiction of the Chamber (e.g., whether it will hear appeals on points of law, fact, or both) and outline its power to affirm, reverse, or modify decisions made by the lower panel.
Article 10 (Access to the Court): Requires revision to clarify which entities and individuals have the standing to appeal a decision to the Chamber.
Article 25 (Applicability): Must be adjusted to indicate that judgments rendered by the Appellate Chamber are final.
Supplementary Protocol A/SP.1/01/05 (Amending the 1991 Protocol)
Articles 9 & 10 (Amended Jurisdictions and Access): These provisions, which currently establish the court’s broad and direct access rules (particularly regarding human rights) without the need to exhaust local remedies, must be modified to clearly institutionalize a formalized appeals track.
Rules of Procedure of the Community Court of Justice
General Practice and Procedure: Entirely new sub-rules governing appellate filings, timelines, evidence admissibility, and panel composition will have to be drafted and adopted by the court itself. Because the creation of an appellate chamber fundamentally alters the operational mandate established by member states, these amendments require formal adoption by the Authority of Heads of State and Government, followed by ratification by the requisite number of member states according to their respective constitutional procedures.
CONCLUSION
It is evident from the above analysis that the quest for an appellate chamber within the ECCJ is a central feature of current proposals aimed at deepening the court’s judicial architecture. The push for an appellate is also driven by several factors such as: - Legal legitimacy and quality assurance; the Right to appeal; consistency in jurisprudence; and addressing compliance concerns.
Finally, creating the proposed Appellate chamber for the ECCJ requires amending the ECOWAS Revised Treaty and the ECCJ’s constitutive protocols, as well as new sub-rules of procedure for the appellate chamber operationalisation. The roadmap and strategic actions proposed require building Member States’ consensus and ECOWAS institutions’ support for the ECCJ Appellate Jurisdiction to materialize and flourish.
