The judicialization of mega-political disputes before the ECOWAS Community Court is understudied. The ECOWAS Community Court lacks express mandate to adjudicate over political disputes. Despite this limitation, the court has been innovative in assuming jurisdiction over mega-political disputes where they are intertwined with potential or actual human rights violation. The Ugokwe Doctrine, enunciated in the case of, Dr. Jerry Ugokwe v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria and Dr. Christian Okeke, provides the precedential ‘cause of action’ for the judicialization of mega-political disputes before the ECOWAS Community Court.
This chapter addresses this new body of jurisprudence by critically analyzing judicialized political disputes before the ECOWAS Community Court. Unlike the traditional scholarship that measures effectiveness based on compliance with the decisions of the courts, the Chapter contends that the significance of the mega-political disputes judicialized before Africa’s regional courts derives from the instrumental objectives of the litigants. By incorporating the social, political, and economic contexts that gave rise to the Francophone and Anglophone cases disputes analyzed, the Chapter illuminates the judicialization of mega-political disputes in ways that are not wedded to the traditional analyses of the functions of regional economic courts.
Saturday, July 18, 2020
Akinkugbe: Towards an Analyses of the Mega-Politics Jurisprudence of the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice
Friday, August 25, 2017
Happold & Radović: The ECOWAS Court of Justice as an Investment Tribunal
This article considers the extent to which foreign investors in member States of the Economic Community of West African States (‘ECOWAS’) might be able to use the ECOWAS Court of Justice to protect their investments against actions of their host States. It does so taking into account the ECOWAS Supplementary Act on Investments and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice on, in particular, the extent of its substantive jurisdiction. Although it is not suggested that the Court of Justice would be better forum than an international arbitral tribunal, it is argued that it has considerable advantages over national courts.
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Bado: Der Gerichtshof der Westafrikanischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft (ECOWAS) als Verfassungsgericht
Der Gerichtshof der Westafrikanischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft (ECOWAS) ist befugt, menschenrechtswidrige Urteile innerstaatlicher Gerichte zu überprüfen. Bürgerinnen und Bürger der ECOWAS-Mitgliedstaaten können den Gerichtshof anrufen und genießen dadurch Individualrechtsschutz, auch wenn nach den innerstaatlichen Rechtsordnungen mancher Mitgliedstaaten Individualbeschwerden vor den Verfassungsgerichten unzulässig sind. Kangnikoé Bado setzt sich mit den hieraus resultierenden Konflikten zwischen regionaler und nationaler Ebene auseinander.
Although originally established to address matters of regional integration only, the Court of the Economic Community of West African States has been tasked to rule on human rights violations since 2005. This has led to jurisdictional conflicts between national (constitutional) courts of ECOWAS member states and the court itself. The author analyses the relationship between the national and regional level, and develops proposals on how to overcome such legal variances.

