By Alex Ababio
The passage of Ghana’s Tribunals Bill, 2026 has triggered one of the country’s most significant legal and constitutional debates in recent years, exposing sharp divisions over how to reform the justice system without undermining public confidence in the rule of law.
At the centre of the controversy is John Darko, the Member of Parliament for Suame, who argues that the government has failed to present any compelling evidence that Ghana’s existing court system is fundamentally defective.
Speaking on The Big Issue on Channel One TV, Mr. Darko maintained that the Minority carefully scrutinised the explanatory memorandum accompanying the bill and concluded that government had not demonstrated why entirely new lower tribunals were necessary.
“One of the things they stated was that the tribunal system was going to clear the backlog of cases at our various courts… They also stated that the tribunals will handle some criminal cases and galamsey. We thought through it, reading the memorandum, we saw that they hadn’t made a case for the establishment of the courts.”
His remarks come only days after Parliament approved the Tribunals Bill, 2026, despite a dramatic walkout by the Minority Caucus. The legislation now awaits presidential assent before becoming law. Government says the measure will strengthen access to justice, reduce case backlogs and enable faster prosecution of specialised criminal matters, including illegal mining (galamsey) offences.
Government’s Case: Faster Justice and Constitutional Safeguards
Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Dr. Dominic Akuritinga Ayine, who sponsored the legislation, has consistently argued that the bill is intended to revive tribunals within the framework of the 1992 Constitution—not to recreate the controversial public tribunals associated with Ghana’s military era.
According to Dr. Ayine, the new legislation seeks to:
improve access to justice;
reduce delays in the court system;
establish Regional and District Tribunals under constitutional safeguards;
create a Tribunal Oversight Committee; and
accelerate the hearing of specialised criminal cases.
Addressing journalists in Parliament earlier this month, Dr. Ayine rejected suggestions that the bill would revive the excesses of the PNDC-era tribunals.
“Operationalising the Regional Tribunal does not intend to resurrect the ghost of the past abuses and excesses.”
He further argued that the Constitution already provides for tribunals, and that the legislation merely seeks to operationalise constitutional provisions that have remained dormant for years.
John Darko’s Counter-Argument: Reform Existing Courts Instead
For Mr. Darko, however, the issue is not whether tribunals can legally exist, but whether they are necessary.
He insists that every objective outlined by government can be achieved by strengthening Ghana’s existing judicial system rather than creating another layer of adjudicating bodies.
“If we are truly minded to get our courts to sit day by day and finish cases early, we can do that. There is nothing in our current structure that prevents a court from adjourning a case to the next day.”
The Suame MP argued that government could instead:
appoint more judges;
increase the number of courtrooms;
introduce afternoon court sittings;
digitise more judicial processes; and
improve case management systems.
According to him, these practical reforms would reduce delays without establishing new tribunals.
He also dismissed the argument that tribunals are needed to improve public participation.
Instead, he proposed expanding Ghana’s jury system to cover additional criminal and civil matters.
His strongest criticism centred on what he described as government’s failure to identify any real defect in the current judicial structure.
“The government has not convinced us, me as a Ghanaian, that we really need the tribunals. Because there is nothing they have shown us which is broken in the current system for which this one is going to fix. And as the Americans say, if it’s not broken, don’t fix it.”
Constitutional Questions Continue
The Minority’s concerns extend beyond efficiency.
During parliamentary proceedings, Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin argued that aspects of the bill create what he described as a “parallel system” that could undermine the constitutional court structure.
One major point of contention is Clause 4, which permits tribunal panels to include members who are not lawyers, provided the chairperson is legally qualified.
The Minority argues that allowing non-lawyers to participate in criminal adjudication raises important constitutional and due process concerns.
These objections ultimately led to the Minority’s walkout before Parliament completed the bill’s passage.
The Historical Shadow of Ghana’s Tribunals
Much of the public debate has been shaped by history.
Tribunals became highly controversial during the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) era, when critics accused some of lacking judicial independence and failing to protect fundamental rights.
Government insists today’s proposal bears little resemblance to that period because the tribunals would operate under the authority of the 1992 Constitution and judicial oversight.
Legal commentator His Honour Festus Fovi Nukunu, writing in The Ghanaian Chronicle, argues that while historical concerns are understandable, the current proposal should be evaluated within the constitutional framework rather than solely through the lens of past political experiences.
According to him, the debate should focus on whether the safeguards contained in the new legislation adequately protect judicial independence and due process.
Can Tribunals Solve Court Backlogs?
The central policy question remains whether tribunals will significantly reduce delays in Ghana’s justice system.
Government believes specialised tribunals can hear selected criminal matters more quickly, thereby easing pressure on ordinary courts.
Mr. Darko disagrees.
His position reflects a broader school of judicial reform that prioritises investment in existing institutions over the creation of parallel ones.
Legal reform experts frequently argue that delays often arise from shortages of judges, inadequate infrastructure, procedural adjournments, manual record-keeping and limited courtroom capacity rather than the absence of additional judicial bodies.
The government, however, maintains that specialised tribunals can complement—not replace—the ordinary courts by focusing on categories of cases requiring expedited determination.
Organised Labour Also Raises Concerns
The bill has attracted criticism beyond Parliament.
Reports indicate that Organised Labour, including the Trades Union Congress (TUC), has publicly opposed the reintroduction of tribunals, citing concerns over governance, historical experience and constitutional implications.
Their opposition demonstrates that the debate extends beyond party politics into wider civil society.
What Happens Next?
Following parliamentary approval, the Tribunals Bill now awaits presidential assent.
If signed into law, the legislation will establish the legal framework for the operation of tribunals, including their jurisdiction, composition and oversight mechanisms.
Implementation will likely involve further regulations, judicial appointments and administrative arrangements before the tribunals become operational.
The Bigger Picture
Beyond the political exchanges, the debate surrounding the Tribunals Bill reflects a larger national conversation about justice-sector reform.
Supporters argue Ghana requires innovative institutions capable of dealing swiftly with complex crimes such as illegal mining, corruption and specialised criminal offences.
Opponents insist the better solution lies in adequately funding existing courts, appointing more judges, embracing digital technology and improving judicial efficiency rather than creating new adjudicating bodies.
Whether the tribunals ultimately strengthen Ghana’s justice system or deepen constitutional controversy may depend less on the wording of the law than on how transparently, independently and fairly the new institutions operate if they come into force.
For now, one question raised by Suame MP John Darko continues to resonate throughout the national debate:
Has government truly demonstrated that Ghana’s existing judicial system is broken—or is it attempting to fix a problem that has yet to be convincingly defined?