The ECOWAS Court of Justice has delivered its judgment in the case of Homeland Study Group Foundation & 30 Ors v. The Republic of Ghana (Application No: ECW/CCJ/APP/12/24), ruling on claims of unlawful detention and violations of human rights arising from the arrest and prosecution of individuals advocating for the independence of Western Togoland.
Case Background
The case was brought by the Homeland Study Group Foundation (HSGF), a Ghana-based movement advocating for the self-determination of the former British Togoland, along with thirty individual Applicants who claimed to be ECOWAS citizens. They challenged their arrest, detention, and prosecution by Ghanaian authorities under the 1976 Prohibited Organizations Decree (S.M.C.D. 20), following their declaration of independence over part of Ghana's territory.
The Applicants argued that their arrests were arbitrary and violated their rights to liberty and self-determination, protected under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. They sought various declarations from the Court, including the illegality of the 1956 plebiscite that merged British Togoland with the Gold Coast, and the incompatibility of the 1976 Decree with international human rights standards.
Findings of the Court
After considering the parties' submissions, the Court made the following key findings:
Jurisdiction and Admissibility: The Court dismissed the Republic of Ghana's preliminary objection and affirmed its jurisdiction over the alleged human rights violations. However, it struck out the Homeland Study Group Foundation from the application due to lack of legal personality, as no evidence of its registration as a legal entity was provided.
1956 Plebiscite and the Right to Self-Determination: The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to assess the validity of the 1956 plebiscite or the administration of British Togoland under the UN Trusteeship system, as these issues fall outside its human rights mandate.
1976 Prohibited Organizations Decree: While affirming its power to review national legislation for human rights compliance, the Court ruled that the Applicants had not identified specific provisions of the 1976 Decree that contravened international standards. The claim was therefore dismissed.
Arbitrary Detention: The Court found that the detention of the 1st to 9th individual Applicants was arbitrary. Although their arrests had a legal basis, their prolonged detention — ranging from 56 days to over a year — without being brought before a court violated constitutional safeguards under Ghanaian law and Article 6 of the African Charter.
Right to Self-Determination: This claim was dismissed, as it was not brought by a proper representative entity. With the HSGF struck out, the remaining individual Applicants were not deemed competent to pursue this collective right.
Court Decision
In its operative clause, the Court:
· Declared the arrest and prolonged detention of the 1st to 9th Applicants arbitrary and in violation of their right to liberty.
· Dismissed the claims relating to the right to self-determination and the legality of the 1956 plebiscite.
· Awarded compensation of USD $2,500 (or the equivalent in local currency) to each of the 1st to 9th Applicants as reparation for the unlawful detention.
· Ordered that each party bear its own costs.
Judicial Panel
The judgment was rendered by a panel comprising:
Hon. Justice Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves (Presiding Judge)
Hon. Justice Sengu Mohamed Koroma (Member)
Hon. Justice Dupe Atoki (Judge Rapporteur)
0 Comments