Mary Omerere v. Republic of Ghana
Published: 23/Jun/2026
Source: ECOWAS Community Court of Justice
Application No: ECW/CCJ/APP/25/25
Judgment No. ECW/CCJ/JUD/30/26
Extracts:
INTRODUCTION
4. The Application concerns the alleged violation of the Applicant’s right to freedom of movement, including her right to leave and return to her country of nationality, as guaranteed under Article 12(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 21(1)(g) of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana. She also claims that her right to nationality, including her right not to be arbitrarily deprived of the recognition and enjoyment of her Ghanaian nationality, was violated, contrary to the guarantees implicit in Article 12(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other applicable principles of international human rights law.
[…]
V. APPLICANT’S CASE
a) Summary of Facts
8. The Applicant states that she is a citizen of the Republic of Ghana and was issued with a Ghanaian international passport by the Respondent’s Immigration Service on 12 December 2018, valid until 11 December 2023. In support of her nationality, she relies on the data page of the said passport, annexed to her application as Annexure BB.
9. The Applicant avers that prior to the issuance of the passport, her mother, Joy Osei, together with other relatives and close relations, were interviewed by the Ghanaian authorities through telephone calls as part of the process leading to the issuance of her Certificate of Birth. According to the Applicant, the Certificate of Birth was processed and issued through the Ghana High
Commission in Lagos, Nigeria, after she complied with all administrative requirements, including the payment of courier charges for the transmission of the document from Ghana.
10. The Applicant further states that the Certificate of Birth has never been nullified, revoked, or otherwise invalidated through any judicial or administrative process. She maintains that having obtained the document through official channels and in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Ghana High Commission, she had no reason to doubt its authenticity.
11.The Applicant avers that on 29 November 2018, she married a Nigerian citizen, Mr. Henry Obukohwo Omerere, in a marriage solemnized under the Marriage Act of the Federal Republic of Nigeria at the Eti-Osa Marriage Registry, Lagos State. Following the marriage, she was issued a duly authenticated marriage certificate. She further states that, in accordance with prevailing customs and practice, her name was subsequently changed from Mary Efai Osei Ayree to Mary Omerere.
12.According to the Applicant, in August 2023, shortly before the expiration of her Ghanaian passport, she applied to the Ghana High Commission in the United Kingdom for the renewal of her passport or, alternatively, the issuance of a new passport. She contends that, despite submitting her application, her request was not processed and was subjected to prolonged, unexplained delays.
13.The Applicant states that during a subsequent interaction with officials of the Ghana High Commission in the United Kingdom in August 2024, she was informed that doubts had arisen regarding the authenticity of her Certificate of Birth and, consequently, her Ghanaian nationality. She maintains that she vigorously defended the document’s authenticity, emphasizing that it had been lawfully obtained through official channels after all prescribed procedures were completed.
14. The Applicant further alleges that although she was never formally notified in writing of any decision concerning her citizenship status, officials of the High Commission informed her that her nationality was considered doubtful and could not be relied upon for purposes of passport renewal, notwithstanding the various documents and evidence she had submitted to establish her
Ghanaian citizenship.
15.The Applicant states that during the interview, she was advised to travel to Nigeria to obtain an original birth certificate or to swear an affidavit of birth. According to her, this directive was written on an unsigned piece of paper by an unidentified official of the High Commission. She contends that she rejected the suggestion because she had no ancestral connection to Nigeria and that compliance with such advice would be inconsistent with her claim to Ghanaian nationality.
16. The Applicant further avers that she was subsequently required to undergo DNA testing at her own expense in order to establish her biological and ancestral links to Ghana. She maintains that she and her husband incurred substantial expenses pursuing the renewal of her passport and engaged in extensive correspondence with the Ghana High Commission, the Attorney-General
of Ghana, and other Ghanaian authorities, but received no satisfactory response.
17. The Applicant states that her legal counsel also addressed several communications to the Attorney-General of Ghana, the Speaker of Parliament, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, and the Ghana High Commission in the United Kingdom, seeking intervention in the matter and requesting confirmation of the status of her passport application. She alleges that these communications equally failed to yield any response or resolution.
18.In support of her claim to Ghanaian nationality, the Applicant relies on documentary evidence, including her mother’s Ghana National Identity Card, a statutory declaration by her mother confirming that she is the Applicant’s biological mother and a Ghanaian citizen, and an affidavit sworn by the Applicant confirming the change of her name following marriage.
19.The Applicant further states that prior to her relocation from Nigeria to the United Kingdom in 2019, she regularly visited family members in Ghana without difficulty. However, in 2024, upon learning of her maternal grandmother’s illness, she sought assistance from the Ghana High Commission in both Nigeria and the United Kingdom but was allegedly informed that she would neither be issued a renewed passport nor be permitted entry into Ghana. She avers that her grandmother subsequently passed away in June 2024 and that she was unable to attend the funeral or pay her last respects due to the refusal to renew her passport.
20.The Applicant contends that the Respondent’s refusal to renew her passport and to recognize her nationality has effectively rendered her stateless and deprived her of the ability to enter Ghana, which she considers her country of birth and nationality. She states that these circumstances compelled her to institute the present proceedings.
21.Finally, the Applicant avers that she resides in the United Kingdom on a visa due to expire in 2025 and that the refusal to renew her Ghanaian passport has placed her in a precarious legal position, affecting both her immigration status and her ability to regularize her stay in the United Kingdom.
b) Applicant’s Pleas in Law
22. The Applicant cited and relied on the following laws for the prosecution of her case:
i. Article 12(2) of the African Charter on Human Peoples Rights
ii. Article 12(4) of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights
iii. Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights
iv. Article 21 ( 1 )(g) of the Constitution of Ghana
c) Reliefs sought by the Applicant
23. The Applicant seeks the following reliefs from the Court:
i. A DECLARATION that the Applicant is still a citizen of the Republic of Ghana and her citizenship, by virtue of birth and nationality, cannot be denied by any administrative action and or any act of the Respondent.
ii. A DECLARATION that the official action of the Respondent and all its agents is a violation of the Applicant’s Fundamental Human Rights to freedom of movement to leave and return to the Republic of Ghana as guaranteed by Article 12(2) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights and Article 21(2) of the constitution of Ghana and Violation of the right to nationality and
the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of her nationality.
iii. AN ORDER for a Reinstatement and for the issuance of a new and immediate international passport of Ghana to the Applicant by the Respondent and its agents.
iv. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Respondent to pay to the Applicant the sum of $100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Dollars) only as aggravated and general damages for the violation of the Applicant’s rights.
v. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Respondent to pay over to the Applicant the sum of$100,000,000. 00 (One Hundred Million Dollars) for the moral prejudice occasioned on the Applicant by all the Respondent’s actions.
vi. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Respondent to pay over to the Applicant the sum of $50,000. 00 (Fifty Thousand Dollars) for the costs of prosecuting this suit.
vii. AND ANY OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS the Community Court of Justice might make in the circumstances of this case.
VI. RESPONDENT’S CASE
24. The Respondent was duly served but did not present a defence.
[…]
78.Having carefully examined the uncontroverted evidence placed before it, the Court is satisfied that the Applicant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that the Respondent’s failure and/or refusal to renew her Ghanaian passport substantially impaired her ability to leave, return to, and maintain effective legal ties with her country of nationality. The Court further finds that this situation, while not conclusively establishing formal deprivation of nationality, produced consequences comparable to those associated with de facto statelessness and directly interfered with the Applicant’s enjoyment of her right to freedom of movement.
79 .In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the Applicant’s claim concerning the violation of her right to freedom of movement is well founded. Accordingly, having determined that the requirements relating to jurisdiction, admissibility, compliance with the applicable procedural rules, and the substantiation of the claim have all been satisfied, the Court grants the Application for Default Judgment and enters judgment in favour of the Applicant on this head of claim.
[…]
84. In the circumstances, the Court considers that the most appropriate form of reparation is restitution aimed at restoring the Applicant’s enjoyment of her right to freedom of movement. Restitution must specify precisely which rights are to be restored to provide clear guidance to the State. Accordingly, the Respondent shall, within six ( 6) months of the notification of this Judgment, take all necessary administrative measures to process and determine the Applicant’s passport application in accordance with law and due process and communicate its decision to the Applicant in writing.
85.The Court further finds that the uncertainty, anxiety, and alteration of the conditions of life caused by the Respondent’s conduct constituted moral prejudice (non-pecuniary damage) for which compensation is warranted. Such damages encompass suffering, anguish, and the “tampering with the essential values of the victim”. However, the Court notes that while it recognizes the gravity of the harm, the Applicant has not adduced sufficient evidence to justify the award of the sum of USD 100,000,000, as reparations must not imply the unjust enrichment of the victim.
86.Exercising its equitable jurisdiction; a standard practice for international tribunals when moral harm cannot be measured by a precise monetary equivalent; the Court awards the Applicant compensation based on the principles of equity and proportionality to the gravity of the violation. Having regard to the nature of the violation established, the duration of the restriction, and the Court’s own precedent in significant human rights cases (such as HADIJATOU MANI KORAOU V. REPUBLIC OF NIGER ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/08, where similar sums were awarded for moral harm), the Court awards the Applicant the sum of USD 15,000 (Fifteen Thousand United States Dollars) as compensation for moral prejudice.
Download: Omerere v Ghana ECOWAS Court Judgment 30-2026