Professor Abotsi calls for clearer limits to ECOWAS Court jurisdiction — MyJoyOnline
Professor Ernest Kofi Abotsi, dean of the Law School at the University of Professional Studies, Accra, called on the institution to more clearly define the limits of its jurisdiction at the international conference of the ECOWAS Court of Justice in Dakar, Senegal. In his view, predictable rules for hearing cases would strengthen trust in the regional court, reduce states’ concerns over sovereignty and lessen resistance to its rulings.
The conference is taking place on September 21–25, 2026, and is devoted to justice, innovation, human rights protection and the future of regional integration in West Africa. As MyJoyOnline reports, Abotsi stressed that the ECOWAS Court’s model of justice must not only comply with its legal mandate but also be understandable and acceptable to governments, citizens, lawyers and other stakeholders.
The example of the European Court
The professor suggested that the ECOWAS Court take into account the experience of the European Court of Justice, in particular the use of predetermined rules of jurisdictional restraint. According to him, such an approach makes it possible to consider complex cases on the basis of established doctrines rather than determining the limits of the court’s powers separately each time.
More current news is available on the UA.News Telegram channel Telegram.
As possible reference points, he named the doctrines of the “purely internal situation” and the “scope of EU law.” Abotsi also mentioned criticism by Nigerian lawyer and human rights defender Femi Falana regarding the inconsistency of the legal grounds for some ECOWAS Court decisions.
Togo constitutional case
As an example of a politically sensitive dispute, Abotsi cited the ECOWAS Court’s consideration of a case concerning constitutional reforms in Togo. In January 2026, the court ruled that certain aspects of the 2024 reform constituted an unconstitutional change of government under Article 23 of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance. The court dismissed or found inadmissible the applicants’ other claims.
In the professor’s view, clearer principles of interpretation would help determine which issues fall within the sphere of national discretion and which should be considered at the regional level. He stressed that this does not mean limiting the right of citizens or states to apply to the court, but should preserve access to regional justice. In his view, defining the limits of jurisdiction could also reduce attempts by states to evade compliance with court rulings.
