ECOWAS Court’s credibility hinges on enforcement, judicial independence — Prof Abotsi

The Dean of the University of Professional Studies, Accra (UPSA) Law School, has warned that the future credibility of the ECOWAS Court of Justice will depend largely on its ability to remain independent and ensure that its decisions are respected, even when member states find them politically inconvenient.

Prof Abotsi said the enforcement of the Court’s orders remained one of its most difficult challenges, particularly because ECOWAS member states must reconcile their national interests and political considerations with accountability to a supranational judicial institution.

He made the remarks in a keynote address at the 2026 ECOWAS Court of Justice International Conference in Dakar, Senegal, being held from 21 to 25 September under the theme, “ECOWAS Court of Justice at the Crossroads: Justice, Innovation, Human Rights Protection and the Future of Regional Integration in West Africa.”

“The enforcement of the Court’s orders remains thorny and in the circumstances intractable,” Prof Abotsi said, arguing that the difficulty of negotiating accountability to a supranational court by member states affected the Court’s work in a distinctive way.

He said regional courts could become particularly vulnerable when their decisions began to have significant consequences for governments.

“In a rather counterintuitive way, regional courts often become vulnerable precisely when they start looking effective and powerful,” he said.

According to him, the stronger the Court’s human rights jurisprudence becomes, the greater the possibility of resistance from states whose actions or policies are challenged by its decisions.

“The more impactful their human rights jurisprudence becomes, the more likely they are to encounter state discomfort and generate resistance to their work,” he said.

He added that judicial decisions criticising member states, whether arising from complaints brought by governments or individuals, could expose regional courts to political pressure.

“The more rebuke they issue to member states whether in reaction to complaints by states or individuals the more likely they are to be looked on with disdain or anger,” he said.

Prof. Abotsi, however, stressed that such political difficulties should not lead the ECOWAS Court to compromise its judicial independence.

He said the Court’s credibility was fundamentally tied to public and state confidence in its ability to issue binding decisions without fear of political reprisals.

“Yet, like all courts, judicial independence remains indispensable to the credibility of regional tribunals like the ECCJ whose power and authority is shaped by the trust reposed in their capability to issue binding orders,” he said.

He cautioned against a situation in which judges might take political consequences into account when determining cases, arguing that such an approach would undermine the Court’s capacity to protect rights and contribute to regional integration.

“Thus, a regional court that adopts a consequentialist posture reflective of its fears of political reprisals in judgments delivered cannot effectively protect human rights or sustain integration against the vagaries of interstate tensions and disputes,” he said.

For Prof. Abotsi, the commitment of ECOWAS member states to regionalism should be demonstrated not only when judicial decisions are favourable to them, but also when those decisions impose obligations they may find difficult or politically uncomfortable.

“It would seem therefore, that the true measure of commitment to regionalism lies not in celebrating judgments with which states agree, but in respecting judgments that states may find inconvenient,” he said.

The UPSA Law School Dean said the Court therefore needed to develop a sustainable institutional relationship with member states that would allow it to remain independent while managing the political reactions that could arise from its decisions.

He described the development of such a pathway as critical to the Court’s future and to the wider regional integration project.

“Designing a pathway out of this complication in which the Court remains detached in spite of political outrages with stoking reactions against its very existence is a key determinant of its future,” he said.

He argued that such a relationship would strengthen the supranational authority of the ECOWAS Court while simultaneously reinforcing the collective interests of member states under a shared legal framework.

“That relational pathway will in the end, strengthen the supranational competency of the ECCJ but also reinforce the collective interest of ECOWAS states as individual countries with shared interests underpinned by the rule of law and mediated by a fair and trust judicial system,” Prof. Abotsi said.

The Court itself has identified the full and timely enforcement of its judgments as a critical challenge at the Dakar conference. ECOWAS Commission President General Birame Diop has also described the gap between the authority of the Court’s decisions and their execution as one of the most serious tests of its credibility.

The issue has been the subject of separate institutional efforts. In February 2026, the ECOWAS Court President, Justice Ricardo Gonçalves, stressed the importance of effective enforcement during a bilateral engagement with authorities in Sierra Leone, while similar engagements have been pursued with other member states to address compliance.

The Court’s conference programme has consequently placed enforcement and compliance among its key areas of discussion, alongside human rights jurisprudence, artificial intelligence and data protection, arbitration and alternative dispute resolution, the proposed appellate chamber, environmental justice, and refugee protection and forced displacement.

Prof. Abotsi’s intervention also comes at a significant point in the evolution of the ECOWAS Court, which was established as the principal judicial organ of the Community under the 1993 Revised ECOWAS Treaty.

The Court has developed a broad human rights role and continues to determine cases involving alleged violations of rights by member states. Its recent caseload includes cases concerning freedom of expression, detention, gender-based violations and other human rights issues.

For Prof. Abotsi, however, the authority created by such jurisprudence must be matched by a commitment to respect and implement the Court’s orders.

He suggested that the Court’s long-term effectiveness would depend on its ability to navigate the difficult space between judicial authority and the political realities of regional governance without allowing either to undermine the rule of law.

The challenge, he indicated, is not to make the Court politically confrontational, but to ensure that its judicial decisions are made independently and that member states maintain their obligations to the regional legal order.

Prof. Abotsi linked the enforcement question directly to the future of ECOWAS integration, arguing that a regional integration project cannot operate effectively if the judicial institutions responsible for interpreting and enforcing its rules lack sufficient authority.

He maintained that respect for inconvenient judicial decisions should be regarded as part of the practical commitment required to sustain regionalism.