The Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS has delivered its judgment in case number ECW/CCJ/APP/15/24 brought by Ligue Togolaise des Droits de l’Homme (LTDH) and 12 Others over alleged violations of democratic principles and human rights obligations by the Togolese Republic. While the Court affirmed its jurisdiction and found aspects of the Applicants’ claims well-founded, it declared some claims inadmissible and dismissed others for lack of proof.

Background

The Applicants— Ligue Togolaise des Droits de l’Homme (LTDH) & 12 Others comprising political parties and civil-society/human-rights associations—approached the Court seeking declarations that the constitutional amendments adopted in March and April 2024 were illegitimate, undemocratic, and contrary to regional and international human-rights standards. They alleged that the measures unlawfully altered Togo’s constitutional order, restricted political participation in public affairs and fundamental freedoms, and undermined democratic governance and electoral integrity. The Applicants urged the Court to recognise these violations and to order appropriate measures to safeguard constitutional legality and citizens’ rights to participate freely and effectively in public affairs in Togo.

On its part, the Respondent, the Togolese Republic, failed to submit a Statement of Defence within the statutory timeframe. Despite proper service of both the Initiating Application and a subsequent application for Default Judgment, the Respondent did not file any process in response to the case. The Court therefore proceeded to hear the matter in default, being satisfied that all procedural requirements had been duly met.

Court’s Findings

The Court held that:

• It had jurisdiction to hear the human-rights claims under Article 9(4) of the Protocol of the Court
• Individuals and associations lack standing to institute actions against Member State over alleged breach of ECOWAS treaty obligations on democracy and good governance. It added that such claims may only be brought by ECOWAS Member States or the President of the ECOWAS Commission. Consequently, the Applicants’ claims founded on alleged non-compliance with the ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance were declared inadmissible.
• While most Applicants established valid legal personality, two entities, ASVITTO and ADDI, failed to do so and were excluded from the proceedings for lack of capacity.
• Legally recognised political parties and human-rights associations may, in appropriate circumstances, invoke participatory democratic rights and bring human rights-based public interest suits.
• The constitutional amendment adopted on 25 March 2024, which was passed by a legislative assembly whose mandate had expired and resulting in the abolition of direct presidential elections and a reconfiguration of executive authority, amounted to an unconstitutional change of government contrary to Article 23 of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance. The Court said that constitutional amendments must not be used to undermine democratic alternation or perpetuate political power.
• The Applicants failed to prove violations of their right to participate in public affairs, as no evidence was presented to show that citizens were denied the opportunity to vote, stand for office, or otherwise exercise civic and political rights during the April 2025 legislative elections. 

Court’s Decision

The Court:

• Declared it had jurisdiction to hear the human-rights aspects of the case.
• Declared inadmissible all claims premised on alleged breaches of the ECOWAS Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance.
• Held that the constitutional amendment of 25 March 2024 constituted an unconstitutional change of government under Article 23 of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance.
• Ordered the Respondent to ensure that any future constitutional reforms comply with regional democratic and governance standards.
• Dismissed the claims relating to violations of the right to participate in public affairs.
• Declined to award compensation, as no individualised harm was established.
• Ordered each party to 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 and Judge Rapporteur)

•          Hon. Justice Gberi-Bè Ouattara (Member)