Tribunals in Ghana: Are We Reviving Justice or Repeating History?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." — George Santayana

Parliament's passage of the Tribunals Bill, 2026, steered through the House by Attorney-General Dr Dominic Ayine and cleared over a Minority walkout led by Alexander Afenyo-Markin, has sparked passionate debate across the country. Supporters argue that tribunals will decongest the courts, expedite justice, and handle specialized cases the ordinary system cannot prioritize. Critics see echoes of a painful chapter in Ghana's political history — a period when tribunals became synonymous with fear, political persecution, and executive dominance.

As expected, the conversation has quickly polarized. One side celebrates the bill as progressive legal reform. The other condemns it as a dangerous step backwards.

But perhaps we are asking the wrong question.

The real issue is not whether tribunals are good or bad. The real question is whether Ghana has learned enough from history to build institutions that deliver justice without becoming instruments of political power.

Looking Back Before Moving Forward

Tribunals are not new to Ghana. Long before the Fourth Republic, they existed to provide quicker, more accessible justice than the traditional court system offered. Their prominence, however, came during the era of the Provisional National Defence Council, when special public tribunals were created to prosecute offences ranging from economic crimes to corruption.

The objective was straightforward: justice should not be delayed by legal technicalities. In principle, few would disagree.

In practice, it proved far more complicated than theory. Some tribunals successfully prosecuted genuine cases of corruption and abuse of office. Others became controversial, widely perceived as lacking independence from the executive. Questions emerged over due process, legal representation, evidentiary standards, and political neutrality.

For many Ghanaians, the word "tribunal" therefore evokes not only justice but also memories of an era in which the lines between law, politics, and executive authority often blurred. History has a long memory — and the Minority made sure the chamber remembered it before they walked out.

What Does the Constitution Say?

Contrary to popular belief, tribunals are not inherently unconstitutional. The 1992 Constitution recognizes them as part of Ghana's judicial architecture under Articles 126 and 142, and provides safeguards intended to ensure fairness, judicial independence, and avenues for appeal. Their legitimacy depends not on their existence, but on how they are constituted, how members are appointed, the scope of their jurisdiction, and whether constitutional protections for fair hearing are respected.

The 2026 bill's most contested clause — Clause 4, which permits panels to seat non-lawyers alongside a legally qualified chairperson — sits exactly at that fault line. The Minority sought its deletion, arguing it risked a parallel justice system. The Majority rejected the amendment. Both sides were arguing, in effect, about the same constitutional question: not whether tribunals exist, but how they are built.

Tribunals themselves are not the danger. Poorly designed tribunals are.

The Good

To dismiss tribunals entirely would be intellectually dishonest. Every justice system faces one persistent challenge: delay. Justice delayed can become justice denied — and the numbers behind this bill make that concrete, with the ordinary courts accumulating thousands of new backlogged cases each year.

Tribunals can reduce that backlog, handle technically complex matters requiring specialized expertise, resolve disputes faster, lower procedural complexity, and widen access to justice where ordinary courts are overwhelmed. Many countries operate specialized tribunals for tax, labour, immigration, land, commercial, and environmental disputes with considerable success. The concept itself is not unusual. The question is whether Ghana can implement it properly.

The Bad

Experience teaches that specialized institutions become vulnerable when adequate safeguards are absent. The greatest concern has never been the tribunal itself. It has always been who controls it.

When appointments are perceived as politically motivated, public confidence erodes. When procedures differ substantially from ordinary courts without compelling justification, citizens begin to question fairness. When executive influence overshadows judicial independence, justice risks becoming selective — and selective justice is no justice at all.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." As Lord Acton warned, that caution applies to every government, regardless of political colour.

The Ugly

This is where history becomes uncomfortable. Every legal system contains loopholes. The question is whether those loopholes can be exploited.

Could a future government use tribunals to target political opponents? Could it selectively prosecute critics while overlooking allies? Could public confidence in the judiciary suffer if tribunals are perceived as parallel courts serving political interests rather than independent justice?

These are not accusations. They are constitutional questions — the same ones the Minority raised on the floor, and the same ones every democracy should ask before, not after, creating a powerful new institution.

"There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in the name of justice." As Montesquieu observed, the strength of a democracy is measured not by how much power it gives its institutions, but by how effectively it restrains them.

A Different Conversation Ghana Should Be Having

Perhaps the most disappointing part of this debate is that it has become almost entirely political. Yet Ghana faces pressing national challenges that could genuinely benefit from specialized tribunals — and the bill's own scope already gestures toward some of them, naming economic and environmental matters among the categories tribunals may hear.

Consider illegal mining. Every rainy season, rivers become polluted. Communities lose access to clean drinking water. Farmlands are destroyed. Forests disappear. Mercury contaminates ecosystems. Years of environmental degradation often result in court cases that drag on while the destruction continues. By the time judgment is delivered, the river is already poisoned, the forest already gone, the damage already done.

Instead of a tribunal system that inevitably becomes associated with political controversy, why not build Environmental Tribunals with clearly defined and limited jurisdiction — specialized benches staffed not only by legal professionals but also environmental scientists, hydrologists, forestry experts, and land-use specialists? Such tribunals could hear cases involving illegal mining (galamsey), river pollution, illegal logging, wetland destruction, coastal erosion, wildlife trafficking, hazardous waste dumping, and illegal sand winning.

Justice in environmental matters should not take years. Nature does not wait for court adjournments. Neither should the law.

Closing Thoughts

The debate over tribunals should not become another contest between political parties. It should become a conversation about institutional design.

History warns us about the dangers of concentrating power. The Constitution reminds us that justice must remain independent. Experience teaches us that institutions are only as trustworthy as the safeguards that govern them.

If Ghana chooses to revive tribunals, let them be transparent. Let them be independent. Let them be accountable. Most importantly, let them address the problems ordinary courts struggle to resolve — not become another arena for political conflict.

Perhaps the real question is not whether Ghana needs tribunals. The real question is whether Ghana has the courage to build tribunals that serve justice rather than power.

Because justice should never be feared. It should be trusted.

"Justice too long delayed is justice denied." — Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Rexford Adjei Darko is a Public Relations Practitioner, Governance & AI Advocate and CSR Researcher based in Udon Thani, Thailand.

Contact: rexfordgh1@yahoo.com | +233 244 769 456 | +66 065 973 3550

   Comments0