The Tribunals Bill, 2026, presently before Parliament, has reignited a national debate on the role of tribunals within Ghana’s constitutional democracy. The Bill has attracted divergent opinions from Members of Parliament, senior lawyers, academics and civil society organisations.
GeographicReference
While some view the Bill as an important reform intended to improve access to justice and reduce the backlog of cases in the ordinary courts, others fear that it may revive memories of the Public Tribunals established during the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) era, which were widely criticised for alleged violations of fundamental human rights and the principles of natural justice.
The debate is understandable. Tribunals occupy a unique place in Ghana’s constitutional history. However, any meaningful assessment of the proposed legislation must be based not on historical sentiment alone but on the constitutional framework within which the proposed tribunals are intended to operate.
The Constitutional Basis for Tribunals
Contrary to the impression created by some commentators, tribunals are not alien to the 1992 Constitution. Article 125(1) provides that justice emanates from the people and shall be administered in the name of the Republic by the Judiciary, which shall be independent and subject only to the Constitution.
More importantly, article 125(2) expressly states that:
«”The citizens of Ghana shall participate in the administration of justice through the institutions of public and customary tribunals and the jury and assessor systems.”»
GeographicReference
This provision demonstrates that the framers of the Constitution deliberately envisaged tribunals as part of Ghana’s justice delivery system. The Constitution did not abolish tribunals. Rather, it preserved them within a constitutional framework governed by judicial independence, due process and the rule of law.
Articles 142 and 143 further recognise Regional Tribunals as part of the Judiciary, although these tribunals have become largely dormant in practice.
Historical Experience and Public Perception
Public concern regarding tribunals is deeply rooted in Ghana’s political history.
The Public Tribunals established under the Public Tribunals Law, 1982 (P.N.D.C.L. 24) and subsequently amended by the Public Tribunals Law, 1984 (P.N.D.C.L. 78) became associated with allegations of political influence, procedural irregularities and violations of fundamental rights.
The Community Public Tribunals in particular attracted sustained criticism from lawyers, judges, human rights advocates and the international community.
These historical experiences explain why any proposal to revive tribunals naturally evokes caution and, in some quarters, outright opposition.
The concerns are therefore legitimate and deserve serious consideration.
The Purpose of the Tribunals Bill
The explanatory memorandum to the Bill makes clear that its objective is to establish the jurisdiction, composition and operation of tribunals in accordance with the Constitution while creating a Tribunal Oversight Committee to ensure accountability.
The Bill seeks to address a legislative gap that has existed since the coming into force of the 1992 Constitution by providing a clear statutory framework for Regional and District Tribunals.
It also seeks to remove the historical stigma attached to tribunals by ensuring that they operate within constitutional safeguards, respect fundamental human rights and adhere strictly to due process.
The proposed tribunals are intended to complement—not replace—the existing courts.
The Divergent Views
The legal community remains divided.
One school of thought argues that the establishment of tribunals will not necessarily guarantee expeditious trials. According to this view, the causes of delay in Ghana’s justice system are structural. They include inadequate numbers of judges, insufficient courtrooms, lack of prosecutors, shortage of court staff, poor logistics and frequent adjournments. Unless these systemic problems are addressed, merely creating tribunals may not significantly improve the speed of justice.
This argument deserves serious reflection.
However, another school of thought contends that tribunals will substantially reduce the workload of the Circuit Courts and High Courts by sharing jurisdiction over specified categories of cases. With more adjudicatory bodies hearing criminal matters, existing courts would have fewer cases, enabling judges to dispose of matters more efficiently.
This argument is equally compelling.
The reality is that the success of the proposed tribunals will depend not merely on their creation but on the quality of their administration, adequate resourcing and effective case management.
Clause 19: The Most Controversial Provision
Perhaps the greatest public concern centres on clause 19 of the Bill.
Clause 19 confers concurrent original criminal jurisdiction on District Tribunals alongside the Circuit Courts, subject to certain exceptions.
Although the Bill excludes offences such as treason, offences punishable by death and offences triable on indictment, District Tribunals would still be competent to hear a wide range of criminal cases presently tried by the Circuit Courts.
This has generated concern because the jurisdiction may include offences relating to publication of false news, offensive conduct, rioting, unlawful assembly and other offences connected with public speech and public order.
Some have therefore questioned why specialised tribunals should be established to hear cases involving speech and assembly, particularly given Ghana’s historical experience.
These concerns should not be dismissed. Parliament would be well advised to explain more clearly the policy considerations underlying the allocation of such offences to the jurisdiction of District Tribunals. Public confidence in the administration of justice depends not only on fairness but also on the appearance of fairness.
Constitutional Safeguards Against Abuse
Despite these concerns, it is important to recognise the safeguards built into the Bill.
Clause 3 requires tribunals to observe fairness, transparency and efficiency while respecting the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.
Clause 5 requires the Judicial Council, in consultation with the Tribunal Oversight Committee, to issue guidelines governing the administration of tribunals.
Clause 6 integrates tribunals into the judicial system and makes their decisions subject to appellate review.
Clause 23 excludes constitutional interpretation, human rights enforcement proceedings and other matters expressly excluded by law from tribunal jurisdiction.
These safeguards distinguish the proposed tribunals from the Public Tribunals of the PNDC era.
Unlike their predecessors, the proposed tribunals are constitutionally anchored, institutionally supervised and judicially accountable.
Tribunals as a Practical Solution
Having served for several years as a Circuit Court Judge, I have witnessed first-hand the increasing pressure on the ordinary courts.
Every legal term brings hundreds of new criminal and civil cases. Judges work under considerable pressure to deliver timely justice while maintaining the highest standards of fairness.
In my respectful opinion, specialised tribunals can become an effective complement to the ordinary courts.
They should focus on clearly defined categories of cases that require specialised attention or expedited determination. Properly managed, they can reduce the burden on Circuit Courts, shorten waiting times for litigants and improve public confidence in the administration of justice.
No single reform will eliminate delays within the justice system. Nevertheless, increasing adjudicatory capacity through constitutionally established tribunals represents an important step in that direction.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding the Tribunals Bill, 2026 should not be reduced to a simple comparison between the tribunals of the past and those proposed for the future. They are fundamentally different institutions operating under different constitutional environments.
The tribunals proposed by the Bill are subject to the Constitution, supervised by the Judiciary, guided by the Judicial Council, accountable through appellate review and restrained by constitutional guarantees of due process and fundamental human rights.
As a serving Circuit Court Judge who daily confronts the realities of heavy judicial caseloads, I firmly believe that a properly structured tribunal system will ease the burden on the ordinary courts and improve the efficient administration of justice. Tribunals should not be viewed as competitors to the courts but as partners in the constitutional mandate of delivering justice.
The painful lessons of history should guide us, but they should not imprison us. Ghana’s constitutional democracy is far stronger today than it was four decades ago. Our independent Judiciary, constitutional safeguards, appellate structure and vibrant legal profession provide meaningful protection against the abuses that once tarnished the image of tribunals.
If Parliament ensures that the final legislation clearly defines jurisdiction, strengthens procedural safeguards and preserves judicial independence, the proposed tribunals will not represent a return to the excesses of the past. Rather, they will embody the constitutional vision of participatory justice under Article 125 of the 1992 Constitution.
In my considered view, constitutional tribunals have come to stay. They should be embraced not as relics of history but as modern institutions capable of strengthening access to justice, reducing delays and enhancing public confidence in Ghana’s justice system. Properly implemented, they will not diminish the Judiciary; they will strengthen it .
This version is suitable for publication in the Daily Graphic, the Ghanaian Times, the Business & Financial Times, legal journals, or the Ghana Bar Association Journal. It is written in a balanced manner that expresses your personal opinion while acknowledging the competing arguments and maintaining the restraint expected of a judicial officer.
Source: Chronicleghana.com
Discussion about this post