Human rights lawyer and Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Femi Falana, has called on the ECOWAS Commission to urgently establish an appellate division for the ECOWAS Court of Justice, citing growing concerns over inconsistent judgments and weak enforcement across member states.

Falana made the call in a formal request dated June 29, 2026, addressed to the President of the Commission, Omar Alieu Touray, in Abuja.

In the letter, Falana noted that while the ECOWAS Court, established under Article 15 of the Revised Treaty, had played a critical role in interpreting community laws and adjudicating human rights cases, its status as a court of first and last resort had created significant challenges.

He observed that the absence of an appellate mechanism had denied litigants the opportunity to challenge errors of law or procedure, a situation he said had contributed to reluctance by some member states to fully comply with the court’s decisions.

Falana also pointed to increasing inconsistencies in the court’s jurisprudence, citing conflicting decisions in key areas such as public interest litigation, statute of limitations in human rights cases, interpretation of domestic laws, and judicial accountability.

According to him, while the court had previously adopted a liberal approach allowing non-governmental organisations to institute actions without strict proof of personal injury, it later reversed itself by requiring victim authorisation in similar cases.

He further highlighted contradictions in rulings on whether time limits apply to human rights violations, noting that the court had in some instances upheld a three-year limitation period, while in others declared that no such limitation exists.

On the interpretation of domestic laws, Falana referenced differing judgments on Nigeria’s Cybercrime legislation, where the court at one point declared provisions of the law repressive, but later upheld similar provisions in a subsequent case.

He also drew attention to conflicting decisions involving the removal of judicial officers in member states, where the court declined jurisdiction in one case but assumed authority in another with similar facts.

Falana argued that these inconsistencies have undermined confidence in the court and reinforced the need for a structured appellate system to ensure coherence, fairness, and legal certainty.