Ecowas Court and women’s rights in west Africa: what’s working – and what isn’t

The Ecowas Court is a west African regional body located in Abuja, Nigeria, serving the now 12-nation Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas). The court, originally set up to handle economic matters related to the Ecowas Treaty, was given a human rights mandate in 2005. Since then, of the hundreds of cases the court has heard, nearly 90% have been human rights-related. In a recent book, international law and human rights scholar Maame Efua Addadzi-Koom argues that the shift in the court’s mandate has made it an accessible forum for advancing women’s rights. Some of its landmark decisions have challenged discrimination and violence against women.

Why is the court so important for women’s rights in west Africa?

The court has become the preferred destination for west Africans litigating human rights issues against their governments. As I set out in my book, this has begun to happen since it was given its human rights mandate in 2005.

A key attraction of the Ecowas Court is its accessibility: plaintiffs do not have to go through all the judicial avenues available in their country before they can bring their action to the court. This is the case with other regional tribunals on the continent.

This accessibility has been enhanced by electronic filing and case management systems.

What key decisions has it made about the rights of women?

It’s made key decisions in areas like marriage, widowhood, domestic violence, employment, school, culture and conflict situations. An example is the 2019 decision of Women Against Violence and Exploitation in Society (WAVES) and Child Welfare Society, Sierra Leone (CWS-SL) v. The Republic of Sierra Leone (the “Waves” case).

This was a public interest litigation case against Sierra Leone, where a non-governmental organisation filed the action on behalf of an estimated 3,000 pregnant schoolgirls. Sierra Leone had banned pregnant schoolgirls from attending mainstream schools and offered them substandard education in “alternative” schools.

Waves argued that the arrangement denied the girls equal access to education on the basis of their pregnancy status. The court ordered Sierra Leone to revoke the ban and close down the alternative schools.

How enforceable are its decisions?

The court is working to improve the enforcement of its decisions. It has an enforcement plan – member states are to set up a national authority to receive and enforce the court’s decisions. Not all member states have done so. Eight out of the 12 Ecowas member states have not complied with the arrangement.

Even among those that have set up a national authority, records show that some are among the countries with the highest number of unenforced judgments. Nigeria, home of the Ecowas Court, is one example.

That said, there are instances of decisions being enforced in part. For example, the Waves case. I attribute Sierra Leone’s partial compliance to the public-interest nature of the case, which led to systemic remedies (fixing the broken system in the country) rather than monetary remedies (compensation for individual victims), and the publicity such litigation generates.

What weaknesses still need to be addressed?

A gap I note in the book is the uncertainty surrounding the monetary compensation the court awards in women’s rights cases. It is one thing for women to receive a favourable judicial declaration that their rights have been violated, and another to be unsure of the “price tag” the court will place on those rights.

The “price tag” is equally important, and the lack of uniformity diminishes predictability, a determining factor in effective compensation.

I also observe that there is minimal mention of the Maputo Protocol by the Ecowas Court in most of its women’s rights decisions, the 2025 case of Forum Against Harmful Practices and Others v. Republic of Sierra Leone being an exception. The Maputo Protocol is the African Bill of Rights for Women, adopted in 2003. It is the first regional human rights treaty specifically designed for women.

In most of the decisions analysed in the book, the court mentions the Maputo Protocol only briefly and does not rely on it heavily. This is troubling because, among international human rights instruments for women, the Maputo Protocol is best suited to African women and girls because of its comprehensive scope and distinctive nature.

If it’s not used, its impact is diminished.

How can the court transform women’s rights in the region?

The Ecowas Court is already doing a great job advancing women’s rights in the region, but its work would be even more transformative if it developed a uniform monetary compensation framework and became more intentional about increasing its reliance on the Maputo Protocol.

Public interest litigation is another route to getting the Ecowas Court to deliver systemic, transformative decisions. But the initiative will come from the lawyers submitting cases, not from the court itself.

What does the future hold for women’s rights in the region?

Ecowas has established itself as a fair and receptive regional court where women can trust they will receive justice, even if their own states do not provide it.

The range of women’s rights issues that the court addresses continues to grow. I eagerly anticipate the court’s future handling of a technology-facilitated gender-based violence case when it is eventually presented with one. This is an emerging form of gender-based violence that is partly or fully committed, assisted, aggravated or amplified using technological platforms and other digital media or tools.

Women are particularly affected by this type of violence. As of 2026, it’s estimated that 75% of women globally have experienced it. Therefore, a decision by the Ecowas Court on this matter would help shape the rights of women to be free from violence online.

Source link