When Ghana became a Republic in 1960, the Courts Act was passed.[4] It repealed Cap 4 and introduced a post-colonial courts system as we have it now. In 1971, the Parliament of the Second Republic passed a new Courts Act.[5] The new Act served the Second and Third Republics until the 31^st December, 1981 military overthrow of the latter.

In effect, from 1960 to 1981, the courts of Ghana comprised of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court as the superior or higher courts. Lower courts comprised of Circuit and District/Magistrate Courts and, on occasion, Local Courts.   

The PNDC regime was set up after the overthrow of the Third Republican constitutional government of President Limann on 31^st December, 1981. The PNDC introduced ‘tribunals’ in 1982.^[6] The tribunals established included the National Public Tribunals, Regional Public Tribunals, District Public Tribunals and the Community Public Tribunals. The Community Public Tribunals were prominent under the PNDC regime. However, the Community Public Tribunals were accused of human rights abuses and were widely criticised for undermining the rule of law and due process.[7] The tribunals existed alongside the existing courts with a tremendous amount of friction and tension.

With the prospect of a new Republic envisaged under the 1992 Constitution, it was the expectation of many that the tribunals would fold and disappear under the Fourth Republic. As it turned out, that expectation was not met and the tribunals found their way into the constitutional framework for the new Republic. This time round, the tribunals were designated as Community, Circuit and Regional Tribunals and exercised mainly criminal jurisdiction.

When the PNDC’s offshoot, the NDC, held government for the first eight years of constitutional rule in the Fourth Republic (7^th January 1993 to 6^th January, 2001), the tribunals appeared to have perpetually etched themselves on the judicial map. To any student of Ghanaian jurisprudence, the two streams of courts appeared to have merged and flowed in a single river called the Courts Act of 1993. But how did the tribunals (with their military-era antecedents) merge and co-exist with the regular courts?

C: The life of tribunals under the Courts Act

The tribunals created under the 1992 Constitution were given due recognition under the Courts Act of 1993 as part of the formal courts in the country. The tribunals fell into three categories. These were Community, Circuit and Regional Tribunals. The striking feature of the tribunals was that they mainly handled criminal cases.

The Community and Circuit Tribunals formed part of the “lower courts.” These two tribunals were constituted by a chairman who was a lawyer of a requisite number of years’ standing at the Bar, sitting with two lay persons. The Regional Tribunal was part of the Superior Courts of Judicature. It also exercised criminal jurisdiction as the High Court but it was confined to dealing with serious economic offences against the State, whiles the High Court dealt with all other forms of criminal offences. The Regional Tribunal was constituted by a Judge with a required number of years standing at the Bar as chairman (same as a High Court Judge) and two other panel members who were not lawyers.

In spite of the apparent successful merger between the tribunals and the regular courts, some commentators argued that it was unlikely that the tribunals would survive under a political party other than the NDC. According to Gocking, for instance, some of the reasons for such an assertion were as follows; some important opponents' lingering suspicion of tribunals in any form, the many weaknesses of the tribunal system, and the cost and the cumbersome nature of its personnel requirements. He opined further that the tribunals would be obvious targets in any concerted attempt to streamline the Ghanaian civil service.[8]

Needless to say, in 2002, during President’s Kuffour’s first term in office, the Circuit tribunals were abolished and the District and Regional tribunals were merged into the District and High Courts respectively. The change was well received. Since then, the courts have worked just fine, inspite all their shortcomings. Until now.

D: Tribunals 2.0 in 2026: Is it necessary?

In keeping with the Attorney-General’s promise to reintroduce tribunals, a Tribunals Bill has surfaced. The bill introduces Regional and District Tribunals to handle specific criminal cases, and to promote the participation of ordinary citizens in the judicial system.[9] Plucking the courage to bring back tribunals in the face of immense critique is one thing. But passing an entirely new law to host tribunals outside the regular courts is a whole different kettle of fish.

It would be recalled that at the dawn of the Fourth Republic, the framers of the Constitution, 1992 acknowledged the need to scrap the Public Tribunals law. The military rulers who superintended over, and ruled as civilians in the Fourth Republic, realised that it would be pointless to transport the tribunals’ law into the constitutional regime in the Fourth Republic. Therefore, the tribunals were incorporated into the Courts Act, 1993 as part of the Judiciary under the headship of the Chief Justice.[10]

When the NPP Government found it expedient to do away with the tribunals, it did so by amending the Courts Act.[11] It did not pass a different law to achieve that aim. Therefore, if the current NDC Government deems it necessary to resurrect the abolished District Tribunals (with a slightly different criminal jurisdiction), one would have thought an amendment of the Courts Act would have been sufficient. Since tribunals were originally created as part of the courts of the country under the Fourth Republic, it is unclear why they are now made to sit outside the law governing the creation, functions, and operation of courts, that is, the Courts Act. With the passage of a stand-alone law for tribunals, the heyday of the dual courts system under military rule are upon us.

One unsettling aspect of the intended tribunals law is that, for the first time in the constitutional history of Ghana, a Chief Justice is to head a bifurcated Judiciary that is run under two different laws; one for “courts” properly so called and another for “tribunals.” A Chief Justice would have administrative responsibility for two different adjudication systems, each governed by a different law. A more chaotic judicial regime cannot be imagined.

As if the two-prong judicial system is not perplexing enough, there is also introduced a concept of Tribunal Oversight Committee.[12] This Committee, it is said, is supposed to be a Committee of the Judicial Council. Its duties include issuing guidelines for the administration of tribunals. Rules of court are made by the Rules of Court Committee. Practice directions are issued by the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice heads both the Rules of Court Committee and the Supreme Court.

Surprisingly, the Chief Justice, as the head of the Judiciary, is not a member of the Tribunal Oversight Committee, much more its head. One can hardly appreciate the system created under the Bill where the Chief Justice will not be a part of a body mandated by law to issue guidelines for the administration of tribunals of which the Chief Justice is the head.

Again, the rules of practice of the courts are made by the Rules of Court Committee established under the Constitution, 1992. It is unclear under the Bill which entity will make rules of procedure for the tribunals, apart from saying it will adopt the Criminal Procedure rules.

Now, by the Tribunals Bill, the category of offences that fall within the jurisdiction of a Regional Tribunal include the offences of causing loss, damage or injury to property, importation of explosives and using public office for profit.[13] Regional Tribunals will also handle criminal cases which arise under the Narcotics Control Commission Act,[14] the Income Tax Act,[15] the Customs Act,[16] and the Minerals and Mining Act.[17] Other offences that will be tried before the Regional Tribunals are offences which involve economic fraud or loss of State funds or property and offences against the State and public interest as Parliament is empowered to prescribe by law.[18] Needless to say, all these offences are currently being tried before the Criminal Division of the High Court. Therefore, it is difficult to argue in favour of another court of co-ordinate criminal jurisdiction created under an entirely different law to handle the self-same cases.

One nagging question begging for an answer is whether the tribunals, under their own administrative and supervisory body (a.k.a Tribunal Oversight Committee) will operate at the regular courts premises or they would have purpose-built premises from which they will operate. If the former is the case, then it would have made more sense to situate the tribunals within the Courts Act as it used to be. If the latter holds true, then the tribunals coming in 2026 might be perceived in worse light than those that existed under military rule. 

E: Conclusion

The tribunals created by law to operate alongside the regular courts under PNDC military rule from 1981 to 1992 got a pass into the Fourth Republic, but not before shedding its military era law. The tribunals were adopted into the Courts Act to operate under a single court system in a Judiciary headed by the Chief Justice. Due to its historical antecedents and the weaknesses inherent in it, the tribunals were abolished and their mandates were assumed by the regular courts. That was about 24 years ago. We have moved on.

The tribunals are being re-introduce in 2026. This time, not as part of the courts created under the Courts Act. It is coming complete with its own constituent Act. The cases that are intended to be tried by the tribunals are already being handled by the Circuit and High Courts. Thus, it is difficult for one to see the real problem the tribunals law seeks to solve. If it is about legislating for day-to-day hearing of cases and handling “galamsey” cases, it is submitted that the Circuit and High Courts are doing fine. Whatever additional safeguards are necessary to ensure speedy trials could have been introduced by amending the Criminal Offences and Procedure laws.

The problems confronting justice delivery are well-documented. Citizens who use the courts would benefit more from a system overhaul that will assure speedy and cost-effective trials before competent courts, rather than an additional layer of courts designed to aid State prosecutions and not citizens’ access to justice. 

Discover more

Courts

court

Court