The Community Court of Justice, ECOWAS, on 2 July 2025, delivered its judgment in case no. ECW/CCJ/APP/16/24, involving an allegation of violation of the right to equality filed by a retired magistrate against the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire. The Court dismissed the claims on the grounds that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the alleged violation of right to equality.

Case Background

The Applicant, Mr. Eliam Potey, a retired magistrate from the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire and former judge of the ECOWAS Court, brought a case before the Court alleging a violation of his fundamental right to equality, as guaranteed under Article 3 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) and Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

He contended that, despite fulfilling the eligibility criteria for promotion since 2004, he remained in the same position for over two decades, without being promoted. In contrast, several of his colleagues, including some lower in seniority, were promoted during the same period. He argued that this consistent omission by the competent authorities in charge of promotions amounted to a prolonged and unjustified denial of equal treatment.

Mr. Potey further claimed that the discrimination and violation of his right, caused him material and moral damages including lost salary and reduced retirement benefits. He demanded payment of accrued salary and pension totaling 279,866,780 FCFA as well as compensation of 300,000,000 FCFA.

The Respondent, in its defence, argued that the promotion the Applicant sought is governed by Article 4 of Law No. 94-498, which allows automatic promotion only for magistrates holding specific high-level positions such as Supreme Court Justices or Heads of Appeal Courts. Others, including the Applicant may only be promoted at the discretion of the President of Côte d’Ivoire, dependent on completion of the required service duration.

The Respondent also emphasised that Mr. Potey did not take any formal steps or seek redress through administrative channels over the course of the 20-year period. It noted that he only brought the matter before the ECOWAS Court shortly before retiring in 2021. According to the Respondent, the nature of the promotion the Applicant sought are not entitlements but discretionary and do not constitute acquired right.

Court Findings

On jurisdiction, the Court affirmed its competence to hear the case as it concerned allegations of human rights violations under Article 9(4) of the Court’s Supplementary Protocol.

The Court found that the Applicant failed to submit concrete and verifiable evidence showing that colleagues of similar or lesser positions were promoted under comparable conditions while he was not. The Court observed that promotion decisions are typically published in official government gazettes, and the Applicant could have obtained and submitted such records to support his claim. His failure to provide such evidence among others weakened his argument that he was subject to discriminatory treatment.                                                 

The Court also noted the Applicant’s lack of initiative over the 20-year period in seeking administrative or judicial redress, aside from a letter submitted to the Minister of Justice shortly before his retirement. The total absence of such elements in the proceedings prevented the Court from adjudicating in the Applicant’s favour.

Court Decision

The Court:

1. Declared it had jurisdiction to hear the matter in accordance with Article 9(4) of the Protocol of the Court.
2. Declared the application admissible, having met the requirements under Article 10(d) of the Protocol of the Court.
3. Found no violation of the Applicant’s right to equality under Article 3 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
4. Dismissed all claims brought by the Applicant.
5. Ordered the Applicant to bear the costs of the proceedings, to be assessed by the Chief Registrar of the Court.

Judicial Panel

The judgment was delivered by a panel comprising:

• Hon. Justice Ricardo Cláudio Monteiro Gonçalves (Presiding Judge and Judge Rapporteur)
• Hon. Justice Dupe Atoki – Member
• Hon. Justice Edward Amoako Asante – Member