By Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D.
For 25 years, the ECOWAS Court of Justice has been building something remarkable in West Africa: a regional forum where ordinary citizens can challenge governments and seek redress when their rights are violated. But every court eventually confronts a question more difficult than delivering judgment: What happens after the judges have spoken?
A citizen may suffer a violation of his rights, approach the ECOWAS Court, spend years seeking redress and eventually win. The judges pronounce judgment. Damages may be awarded. A government may be ordered to act, stop an abuse or remedy a violation. Yet, if the state refuses to comply, the citizen discovers an uncomfortable truth: winning a judgment is not always the same as obtaining justice.
That challenge featured prominently at the ECOWAS Court’s 2026 International Conference, which ended in Dakar, Senegal, on September 25. Among the recommendations adopted were the establishment of an Appeal Division and stronger mechanisms for ensuring that member states comply with judgments of the regional court.
The proposed appellate chamber represents an important stage in the Court’s institutional evolution. For 25 years, its judgments have been final and not subject to ordinary appeal. An Appeal Division could provide an opportunity to correct judicial errors, strengthen consistency in jurisprudence and give litigants another level of review.
There is merit in that proposition. No credible judicial institution should fear mechanisms capable of correcting its mistakes, provided those mechanisms preserve judicial independence and do not merely multiply litigation.
But strengthening the Court must go hand in hand with strengthening compliance with its decisions.
Figures presented around the Dakar conference are sobering. Only about 18 to 22 per cent of the Court’s enforceable judgments are reportedly being implemented across ECOWAS member states. Some states have apparently not complied with a single judgment against them.
That is not principally a failure of judges. A court does not possess an army. Judges do not personally seize government accounts, release detainees or compel ministers to implement orders. Judicial authority ultimately rests upon the acceptance that judgments are binding, even when those in power dislike them.
Once governments discover that they can lose cases and simply ignore the outcome, something fundamental happens to the rule of law. The Court may have delivered judgment, but the citizen is still waiting for justice.
Nigeria should be particularly concerned.
Earlier this year, the President of the ECOWAS Court, Justice Ricardo Gonçalves, disclosed during an engagement with Nigerian authorities that 128 cases involving Nigeria had been registered before the Court. Of these, 66 had been concluded, but only 10 judgments had been executed, while 52 remained pending execution.
For a country that played a pivotal role in establishing ECOWAS and remains one of the Community’s most influential members, those figures should concern us deeply. Nigeria cannot demand respect for regional institutions when convenient and treat their judgments as optional when inconvenient.
This matters particularly because many cases before the ECOWAS Court involve citizens with considerably less power than the governments they sue. They include people alleging unlawful detention, violations of freedom of expression, torture, discrimination and other abuses of fundamental rights.
For such people, litigation is not an academic exercise. A judgment awarding compensation to somebody unlawfully detained means little if the compensation is never paid. A declaration that a government violated a citizen’s rights provides vindication, but justice remains incomplete if the remedy ordered by the Court is ignored.
That is why enforcement is not merely a technical problem for lawyers. It is the point at which law becomes reality.
The Dakar conference deserves credit for confronting this challenge. Its recommendations include stronger diplomatic engagement with defaulting states, annual reporting on compliance, a regional monitoring mechanism, possible monetary penalties and clearer consequences for persistent non-compliance.
Those proposals deserve serious consideration.
So does the Appeal Division. Governments and citizens appearing before a supranational court are entitled to confidence that decisions can be reviewed where legitimate grounds exist. But an appellate structure must never become another mechanism for postponing justice. An appeal should correct possible errors, not manufacture delays. Once the appellate process is exhausted, compliance must cease to be negotiable.
There is also a responsibility on national governments to create effective domestic machinery for enforcing regional judgments. ECOWAS Court decisions do not execute themselves. Member states must establish procedures through which judgments can move from courtroom pronouncements to practical remedies.
The problem is ultimately political as much as it is legal. Governments are usually enthusiastic about regional courts until they lose before them. Yet the true test of commitment to the rule of law is not obedience to judgments one likes. It is obedience to judgments one would rather not obey.
Nigeria has an additional responsibility. Leadership in West Africa cannot be measured only by population, economic size or financial contribution to ECOWAS. Leadership also means setting standards. If Nigeria improves its compliance record, it strengthens its moral authority to demand the same from other member states.
The Court itself must continue earning that respect through independence, sound reasoning, procedural fairness and institutional transparency. An appellate chamber, properly designed and insulated from political manipulation, could further strengthen those qualities.
But even the finest judicial architecture cannot deliver complete justice if governments refuse to implement its decisions.
That is why the conversation in Dakar must not end in Dakar.
The ECOWAS Court has spent 25 years developing regional jurisprudence and providing West Africans with an important avenue for seeking justice beyond national boundaries. The next chapter should ensure that when the Court speaks with finality, governments listen.
Citizens who approach the Court are not asking judges for beautifully written declarations to frame on their walls. They are seeking remedies.
The Court can hear them, determine their rights and pronounce judgment. But member states must complete the journey by obeying those judgments.
Delivering judgment is the responsibility of the Court. Obeying it is the responsibility of states. Only when both happen does judgment become justice.
Lemmy Ughegbe, Ph.D., FIMC, CMC
Email: lemmyughegbeofficial@gmail.com
WhatsApp ONLY: +2348069716645
