ECOWAS Court at crossroads over unenforced judgments

The creation of the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice was designed as an institutional response to obvious gaps in West Africa’s integration project. Many decades after, enforcing judgments remains a concern, as member states continue to undermine the judicial institution via disregard for its rulings. Yetunde Ayobami Ojo writes.

When the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) was established in 1975, its focus was largely economic trade liberalisation, free movement and regional cooperation.

Over time, it became clear that economic integration without a binding legal order would remain precariouswithout a credible judicial mechanism.

It was against this backdrop that the 1991 Protocol formally established the ECOWAS Court as the principal legal organ of the community, mandated to interpret and apply the Revised Treaty.

However, its transformation into a truly consequential institution came with the 2005 Supplementary Protocol, which expanded its jurisdiction to include human rights violations and, crucially, granted individuals direct access to the court.

That singular reform altered the trajectory of the court by allowing ordinary citizens across West Africa, including Nigerians, who began to approach it as an alternative forum for justice, particularly in cases where domestic remedies appeared ineffective or compromised.

Since then, the court has developed a significant body of jurisprudence. According to official figures, it has received 737 initiating applications, delivered 465 judgments and 145 rulings, and issued advisory opinions while holding over 1,500 sessions. Yet, behind these numbers lies a more troubling statistic – poor enforcement of its judgments by member states.

Estimates have placed compliance at roughly 20 to 22 per cent. As of June 2026, Nigeria leads the region with 54 unenforced judgments, followed by Togo with 36 and Guinea with 17. Other countries, including Côte d’Ivoire, Sierra Leone, Ghana, and Senegal, also recorded multiple instances of non-compliance.

This persistent failure to enforce judgments raises a fundamental concern about how a court that lacks compliance can truly dispense justice.

One of the most cited cases is SERAP v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2010), where the ECOWAS Court held that the right to education is justiciable and that the Nigerian government has an obligation to provide free and compulsory basic education. The case arose from allegations of corruption and mismanagement of funds meant for the Universal Basic Education programme.

The court ordered Nigeria to take concrete steps to address the violations. Despite the clarity of the judgment, implementation has remained limited. While Nigeria continues to allocate resources to education, systemic issues ranging from underfunding to infrastructure deficits have persisted, raising questions about the extent to which the judgment has influenced policy.

In another case, SERAP v. Nigeria (2012), the court addressed the mismanagement of public funds in the education sector. It directed the government to account for missing funds and ensure transparency.Yet, more than a decade later, concerns about accountability in public spending remained a recurring issue in governance.

Perhaps more direct in terms of compensation is the case of Chief Ebrima Manneh v. The Gambia. It established a critical precedent on unlawful detention that has influenced subsequent Nigerian cases before the ECOWAS Court.

In the case of Registered Trustees of SERAP v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2016) concerning the failure to provide adequate electricity, the court recognised that access to electricity is linked to the enjoyment of fundamental human rights, including the right to an adequate standard of living. While the judgment did not fix a specific compensation amount, it imposed obligations on the Nigerian government to take steps towards improving access.

In Jonah Gbemre v. Shell Petroleum Development Company & Nigeria, the domestic case influenced environmental rights discourse that has since been echoed in ECOWAS Court litigation involving Nigeria, particularly in matters relating to the Niger Delta region.

A more concrete compensation case is that of Dorothy Njemanze & Others v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2017), where the Court found Nigeria guilty of human rights violations involving the arbitrary arrest and inhumane treatment of women during raids in Abuja.

The court had awarded damages amounting to N6 million to each applicant. Despite the clarity of the ruling, enforcement has been slow, with reports indicating delays in full compliance.

Similarly, in Godwin Ojo v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2019), involving arbitrary detention and violation of personal liberty, the court ordered compensation running into millions of naira. As with many other judgments, compliance has not been immediate, reflecting a broader pattern.

Another notable case is Abacha v. Fawehinmi (though decided by Nigerian courts), which laid the groundwork for the domestication of international human rights norms.

This has had indirect implications for ECOWAS Court litigation involving Nigeria, particularly in reinforcing the role of international obligations within domestic jurisprudence.

The recurring issue across these cases is not the absence of judicial clarity but lack of enforcement.

Legal analysts have attributed the development to the absence of coercive enforcement mechanisms.

Relying on member states to implement its decisions voluntarilycreates a situation where governments, often defendants, become judges in their own cases when it comes to enforcement.

Although Nigeria has designated the AttorneyGeneral of the Federation as the competent authority responsible for enforcing ECOWAS judgments, coordination across ministries, departments and agencies remains weak, resulting in delays, inconsistencies and, in some cases, outright neglect.

These concerns have been echoed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, who called for stronger collaboration between national courts and the ECOWAS court, including structured referrals and joint capacity-building initiatives.

Human rights lawyer, Femi Falana (SAN), has also criticisedthe country’s failure to enforcethe Court’s judgments and urged President Bola Ahmed Tinubu to direct the AttorneyGeneral to ensure immediate enforcement, arguing that the country’s leadership position within ECOWAS makes its non-compliance particularly damaging.

Beyond Nigeria, the pattern of non-compliance is widespread, leading to what experts described as ‘compliance fatigue’, where repeated non-enforcement normalises disregard for the court’s authority.

The implication is that for victims, approaching the court becomes meaningless if its judgments are not implemented. For the region, the erosion of judicial authority undermines the rule of law and weakens the integration project.

To address such challenges, the Court has introduced several reforms,including the establishment of Competent National Authorities (CNAs), to coordinate enforcement at the national level andhigh-level meetingsaimedat developing a collaborative framework and harmonised enforcement procedures.

The Court has also expanded its outreach through external court sessions in Lagos, Accra, Abidjan and Lomé to bring justice closer to the people, enhance awareness and foster judicial dialogue between regional and national courts.

Consequently, the Court remains a vital institution in the regional integration project. Its role in interpreting community law, protecting human rights and resolving disputes is indispensable.

Thus, for the region to realise its vision of a rules-based community, member states must move beyond rhetorical commitments to concrete action. Compliance with court judgments is not merely a legal obligation but the foundation upon which trust in regional institutions is built.

Until that foundation is strengthened, the Court remains a court of promise respected in principle but weakened in practice.