The Ecowas Court has become the preferred destination for west Africans litigating human rights issues against their governments, according to Maame Efua Addadzi-Koom, an international law and human rights scholar.
In a piece for The Conversation, Addadzi-Koom argues that the court’s accessibility, electronic filing systems and human rights mandate have made it a forum where women can seek justice even when their own states do not provide it.
The court, based in Abuja, Nigeria, serves the now 12-nation Economic Community of West African States. Originally established to handle economic matters related to the Ecowas Treaty, it was given a human rights mandate in 2005.
Since then, nearly 90% of the hundreds of cases it has heard have been human rights-related, according to the source material.
Why is the court so important for women’s rights in west Africa?
Addadzi-Koom identifies accessibility as a key attraction. Plaintiffs do not have to exhaust all judicial avenues in their home country before bringing an action to the court, a contrast with other regional tribunals on the continent.
Electronic filing and case management systems have further enhanced this access.
What key decisions has it made about the rights of women?
The court has made key decisions in areas including marriage, widowhood, domestic violence, employment, school, culture and conflict situations. Addadzi-Koom cites the 2019 “Waves” case as an example.
That public interest litigation case was filed against Sierra Leone by a non-governmental organisation on behalf of an estimated 3,000 pregnant schoolgirls. Sierra Leone had banned pregnant schoolgirls from attending mainstream schools and offered them substandard education in “alternative” schools.
The court ordered Sierra Leone to revoke the ban and close down the alternative schools.
How enforceable are its decisions?
Enforcement remains a challenge. The court has an enforcement plan under which member states are to set up a national authority to receive and enforce its decisions.
Eight of the 12 Ecowas member states have not complied with that arrangement, according to Addadzi-Koom.
Even among those that have set up a national authority, records show that some are among the countries with the highest number of unenforced judgments. Nigeria, home of the Ecowas Court, is one example.
There are instances of partial enforcement. Addadzi-Koom attributes Sierra Leone’s partial compliance in the Waves case to the public-interest nature of the litigation, which led to systemic remedies rather than monetary remedies, and to the publicity such litigation generates.
What weaknesses still need to be addressed?
Addadzi-Koom notes a gap in the book: uncertainty surrounding the monetary compensation the court awards in women’s rights cases.
She writes that it is one thing for women to receive a favourable judicial declaration that their rights have been violated, and another to be unsure of the “price tag” the court will place on those rights.
The lack of uniformity diminishes predictability, which she describes as a determining factor in effective compensation.
She also observes that the court makes minimal mention of the Maputo Protocol in most of its women’s rights decisions, with a 2025 case being an exception.
The Maputo Protocol is the African Bill of Rights for Women, adopted in 2003, and is the first regional human rights treaty specifically designed for women.
In most of the decisions analysed in the book, the court mentions the protocol only briefly and does not rely on it heavily.
Addadzi-Koom describes this as troubling because, among international human rights instruments for women, the Maputo Protocol is best suited to African women and girls because of its comprehensive scope and distinctive nature.
If it is not used, she argues, its impact is diminished.
How can the court transform women’s rights in the region?
Addadzi-Koom concludes that the court is already doing a great job advancing women’s rights in the region, but that its work would be even more transformative if it developed a uniform monetary compensation framework and became more intentional about increasing its reliance on the Maputo Protocol.
She also identifies public interest litigation as another route to systemic, transformative decisions, though she notes that the initiative will come from the lawyers submitting cases, not from the court itself.
What does the future hold for women’s rights in the region?
Addadzi-Koom writes that Ecowas has established itself as a fair and receptive regional court where women can trust they will receive justice, even if their own states do not provide it.
She says the range of women’s rights issues the court addresses continues to grow, and that she eagerly anticipates its future handling of a technology-facilitated gender-based violence case when one is eventually presented.
She describes this as an emerging form of gender-based violence that is partly or fully committed, assisted, aggravated or amplified using technological platforms and other digital media or tools.
Women are particularly affected, she writes, citing an estimate that as of 2026, 75% of women globally have experienced it.
A decision by the Ecowas Court on this matter, she argues, would help shape the rights of women to be free from violence online.
Source: The Conversation
Comments