Parliament passes Public Tribunals Bill despite Minority boycott

Parliament has passed the Public Tribunal Bill, 2026, despite opposition from the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and a boycott by the Minority Caucus.

The legislation establishes a legal framework for the creation, jurisdiction, composition and operation of tribunals in accordance with the 1992 Constitution, while also providing for the establishment of a Tribunal Oversight Committee.

The Bill is intended to strengthen access to justice, safeguard the rights of citizens, promote due process and improve the efficient administration of justice, particularly in cases requiring specialised or expedited determination.

The Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Dr Dominic Ayine, laid the Bill before Parliament on June 26, 2026, through the Minister of Lands and Natural Resources, Emmanuel Armah-Kofi Buah. It was subsequently referred to the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee for consideration.

Justifying the proposed legislation, Dr Ayine said the tribunals were needed to address the growing backlog of cases in the regular courts and improve access to justice.

He explained that traditional courts accumulate about 3,360 new backlog cases annually, leading to prolonged delays in adjudication.

"The establishment of the tribunals would help reduce this burden and ensure the expeditious disposal of cases," he said.

The Attorney-General further noted that although Article 142 of the Constitution incorporates Regional Tribunals into Ghana's judicial structure, they have become defunct in practice. He said the Bill seeks to address that gap in the country's legal framework.

Heated debate over Clause 4

The Bill was passed after lengthy and heated debate, with the Minority unsuccessfully seeking the removal of Clause 4.

Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin argued that the clause would create confusion within Ghana's judicial system and should be deleted.

However, Majority Leader Mahama Ayariga opposed the proposal, insisting the House would complete consideration of the Bill regardless of how long proceedings took.

Following debate, First Deputy Speaker Bernard Ahiafor, who presided over proceedings, put the proposal to delete Clause 4 to a voice vote, with the Majority rejecting the amendment.

Dissatisfied with the outcome, Afenyo-Markin challenged the ruling and demanded a headcount. The results showed 16 members voting in favour of deleting the clause and 135 voting against it.

Following the vote, the Minority walked out of proceedings, saying it would not participate in the remaining stages of the Bill.

Minority raises constitutional concerns

Addressing the House, Afenyo-Markin argued that the Bill would establish a parallel judicial system that is not contemplated by the Constitution.

He maintained that Ghana already has a well-defined court hierarchy comprising District Courts, Circuit Courts, High Courts, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

"If there are issues with the system, the way to go is to reform, resource, equip and retool it, but not to create a parallel system with coordinate jurisdiction," he said.

He further expressed concern that under the proposed tribunal system, only the chairperson would be required to be a lawyer, while the other two panel members could be non-lawyers despite adjudicating criminal matters.

The Minority Leader also recalled legal arguments made by Dr Ayine in the case of Republic v. Tagor and Issa Abbas, where, as a private legal practitioner, he successfully argued that criminal convictions must be based on credible evidence proving every essential element of an offence.

According to Afenyo-Markin, the Court of Appeal upheld that position, reinforcing the principle that justice should not be driven by public opinion or sensationalism.

"It is not about how the public perceives an individual because that can be misleading. What we see in this whole exercise is the creation of a system where people could be pronounced guilty even before their cases are properly determined," he said.

He also argued that the proposed tribunal system lacked sufficient procedural safeguards to guarantee fairness.

The Minority Leader added that concerns over the Bill were not limited to the opposition, noting that civil society organisations and organised labour, including the TUC, had publicly opposed its passage.

He further referenced the tribunal system under the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC), claiming that it was used to target individuals, seize assets and enrich some tribunal members.