The President of the ECOWAS Court of Justice, Justice Ricardo Gonçalves, has called on the Nigerian government to lead by example in enforcing the court’s judgments to strengthen the regional rule of law and restore confidence in community justice.
He disclosed that since the establishment of the Court, 128 cases have been instituted against Nigeria, with 66 closed, 10 executed and 52 still pending execution.
Speaking at a bilateral meeting between the Court and the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the enforcement of the court’s judgements on Tuesday in Abuja, the court president said If Nigeria leads by example, it would strengthen the authority of the court and encourage other states to comply.
According to him, failure to enforce judgments weakens the authority of the Court, erodes citizens’ confidence in regional justice and undermines West Africa’s image as a zone of legal and institutional stability.
Gonçalves said, “Nigeria is not merely a Member State. It is one of the founding members of ECOWAS, an economic engine of the region, a political and diplomatic leader, and a pillar of regional stability. Since the establishment of the Court, 128 cases have been instituted against the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 66 cases have been closed; 10 cases have been executed; 52 cases remain pending execution. These figures are not presented as censure, but as an objective basis for joint and profound reflection.
“If the Federal Republic of Nigeria leads by example, it will: Strengthen the authority of the Court; Send a clear message of commitment to the regional rule of law; Encourage other States to follow the same path; Consolidate its position as a normative reference in West Africa. Regional leadership is not demonstrated solely in economic or political terms, but also through fidelity to freely undertaken legal obligations.”
While acknowledging that non-compliance often stems from structural and institutional challenges rather than outright refusal, the Court President listed factors such as lack of coordination mechanisms, administrative and budgetary constraints, political sensitivity of some cases, weak sanctions enforcement and poor inter-agency cooperation.
He said the Court had introduced measures to improve enforcement, including the creation of an Enforcement Division within its Registry, regular engagement with national authorities, setting compliance deadlines in judgments and reporting enforcement status to ECOWAS political organs.
Speaking, the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi(SAN) identified the absence of direct enforcement powers, sovereignty concerns, political resistance, limited resources and jurisdictional complexity as key obstacles in the enforcement of the court’s judgements.
Fagbemi also raised concerns about persistent criticisms of the court, including claims of weak enforcement mechanisms, a disconnect between supranational judgments and national legal systems, and rulings perceived as intrusive into sensitive domestic constitutional matters or difficult to enforce.
He said, “Enforcement Deficit: Courts lack direct enforcement powers, relying on member states’ goodwill. Sovereignty Concerns: States sometimes resist rulings, perceiving them as intrusions into domestic constitutional or governance affairs. Political Resistance: Sensitive cases can trigger backlash, with governments ignoring judgments to avoid political costs. Resource Constraints: Limited funding and staffing affect efficiency, outreach, and monitoring. Jurisdictional Complexity: Overlapping mandates between national, regional, and international courts create confusion and delays.
“When ECOWAS decisions in peacekeeping, trade, or free movement are inconsistently applied, it sets a precedent: member states learn that non-compliance carries little consequence. This undermines respect for judicial decisions.”
Fagbemi added that the lack of an appellate process within the ECOWAS Court has further affected how its judgments are received by member states, as final decisions without review mechanisms may be seen as rigid, especially in politically sensitive cases or where substantial financial awards are involved.
He contrasted the ECOWAS framework with other regional systems, noting that courts such as the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union operate supervisory or review mechanisms that enhance compliance and acceptance.
The Attorney-General further argued that the general institutional weakness of ECOWAS as a regional body has undermined respect for its judicial arm.
He said, ” The weakness of ECOWAS as an institution, therefore, directly translates into the weakness of its judicial arm. If the organisation itself is seen as lacking the power to enforce its collective decisions, then the Court’s judgments risk being treated as advisory rather than binding. Strengthening ECOWAS as a whole is thus inseparable from strengthening the enforcement of its Court’s judgments.”
Despite the challenges, Fagbemi said the ECOWAS golden jubilee offers an opportunity to reaffirm political will and pursue reforms, including the introduction of appellate or supervisory mechanisms, compliance hearings, follow-up reporting obligations and stronger enforcement protocols.
Disobedience to judgments of the ECOWAS Court of Justice has been a recurring challenge since the Court became operational in 2001.
Although its decisions are final and legally binding under ECOWAS protocols, many member states have struggled to comply fully, particularly in cases involving human rights violations, compensation awards and politically sensitive governance issues.
Leave a comment