Other Events
Events
- The primary mandate of the ECOWAS Court of Justice as prescribed in the Revised Treaty and the Initial Protocol on the Court, is the interpretation and application of the Revised Treaty and the annexed Protocols and Conventions. Article 9 of the initial Protocol on the Court made is abundantly clear, that the mandate of the Court was to resolve disputes between Member States or Institutions of the Community, relating to the interpretation and application of the Treaty and the annexed Protocols and Conventions, while Article 10 thereof, gave the Court the competence to give Advisory Opinion. It must be pointed out that under the Initial Protocol, the Court was established as an Inter-State Court and as such, individuals did not have direct access to the Court.
- The Court highlighted its primary mandate of interpreting and applying Community texts in Hon. Jerry Ugokwe v. Nigeria (2004 – 2009) CCJ ELR 37 at paragraph 20 in the following words: “The Treaty which is the fundamental law of ECOWAS, particularly the Protocols relating to the ECOWAS Court of Justice, only invests the Court with specific powers and prerogatives, insisting always on its mandate concerning the observance of law in their interpretation and application.”
- There was a paradigm shift in the mandate of the Court in 2005, following the
adoption of the Supplementary Protocol, which amended the initial Protocol on the
Court. The Supplementary Protocol expanded the jurisdiction and invariably the
mandate of the Court. In very broad terms, the current mandate of the ECOWAS Court
of Justice can be categorized as follows;
a. Mandate as a Community Court
b. Mandate as ECOWAS Public Service Court
c. Mandate as a Human Rights Court
d. Mandate as an Arbitration Tribunal
9. Most significantly, the Supplementary Protocol, for the very first time, granted direct access to the Court to individuals and corporate bodies in respect of certain causes of action, including human rights. It also provided for the first time, a method of enforcement of the judgment of the Court (see Article 24 of the Protocol on the Court as amended). The Supplementary Protocol has had a tremendous impact on the judicial mandate of the C
