In the heat of the political bearpit and other issues, including the ongoing World Cup, which has engaged the public in recent days, an important matter seems to be gliding stealthily under the radar, even though it has been widely reported and the Attorney-General has publicly addressed it.
It was recently reported that the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Dominic Ayine, MP, had laid the Tribunals Bill before Parliament, in a bid to reintroduce public tribunals as part of efforts to strengthen the justice delivery system and improve access to justice.Executive Branch
According to the Attorney-General, the reforms aim, among other things, to address inefficiencies in the existing legal framework, ease the growing backlog of cases in our courts and promote greater citizen participation in the adjudication process.
Background of tribunals
The public tribunals were introduced in March 1982 via PNDC Law 24, in the wake of the Rawlings revolution.
They were designed as a parallel system to the regular courts, with a mandate to mete out ‘revolutionary justice’ ― signalling the impatience and irritation of the regime with what it considered as ‘legal technicalities’ of the regular courts, with the aim being the faster dispensation of cases.
The scope of the tribunals’ work included economic sabotage, corruption and armed robbery.
In October 1982, they were granted the power to impose the death penalty for treason and other major crimes.
Vacancy Announcement
With the political temperature of the day, the tribunals almost inevitably slid into several excesses, including gross human rights abuses and the selective targeting of political opponents.
To the extent that our politics of victimisation and targeting and human rights violations, especially by incumbent governments, is still very much alive 33 years into our constitutional journey, the apprehension over the prospective return of tribunals is quite understandable, even though Article 126 of the Constitution provides space for them within the judicial system.
The Attorney General has provided various assurances, including the establishment of a Tribunal Oversight Committee and the prospect of appealing all tribunal decisions. However, as they say, the road to hell is sometimes paved with good intentions.
Substantive matters
Beyond the political perceptions and optics, there are a number of more fundamental issues for which reasons the reintroduction of tribunals is not such a great idea.
On the backlog of cases and inefficiencies of the courts as some of the justifications set out by the Attorney-General, it is important to note that these are caused by a number of factors, including but not limited to, insufficiency of resources at district court level, low salaries that fail to attract lawyers to seek appointment as magistrates and inadequacy of rules of the district courts for the 21st century.
Other factors include an increase in rights awareness in Ghanaians over the past 30 years or so, as well as the inefficient and weak situation of Court-Connected Alternative Dispute Resolution. Ghana web news
On June 3, 2025, in an article on this very page titled ‘Who speaks for the judges (II)’, I lamented in considerable detail the terrible working conditions, particularly those of our judges in the lower courts (district and circuit courts).
These included decrepit buildings, a lack of internet access for research, low levels of court automation, and long delays in pursuing refunds for monies spent on medical bills, fuel and vehicle maintenance.
In the face of such major challenges which directly impact on justice delivery and contribute in no small measure to creating a case backlog and an inefficient justice delivery system, the solution hardly seems to be the creation of a parallel track of courts.
This costs money and will inevitably get caught up in the same quagmire our traditional courts are in, bringing us back to square one.
That is hardly value for money. It is actually a waste of public funds and will merely paper over the deep cracks in a cosmetic manner. I believe it will be more prudent and strategic to address the challenges in our lower courts by investing appropriately to make them more efficient and fit for purpose.
This includes transferring ownership of all district court buildings from local assemblies to the Judicial Service, along with the retooling, renovation, and revamping of court infrastructure. It means making life as a district or circuit court judge more attractive and comfortable, with proper transportation, security, decent accommodation and research tools.
It means an increase in the subvention to the Judiciary.
Reforming system
Beyond the brick-and-mortar and logistical investments required, I believe it is also important to consider various reforms if we want to make our courts fit for purpose.
First, I think there should be certainty in the tenure of postings to avoid judicial transfers at short notice, which inevitably lead to delays due to part-heard cases.
Further, I believe it should be possible to bring back retired judges (up to a certain age) to sit as part-time judges, paid a sitting allowance on an ad hoc basis, to help deal with a backlog of cases whilst drawing their judicial pension.
In the UK, for instance, under the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act, 2022, a similar arrangement is in place. It is called the ‘Sitting in Retirement’ (SIR) rule. At magistrate level, retired senior civil servants could be brought in, again on an ad hoc basis. In particular, they can be brought on board during the legal vacation from July to October each year.
Our Courts Act, 1993, Act 459 provides for the appointment of Masters of the High Court, who should be practising lawyers with 10 years’ experience, sitting as part-time judges for some days in a year.
This is akin to the practice in England and Wales, where senior legal practitioners may be appointed to sit as part-time judges (also known as Recorders) in the county or crown courts for 15 to 30 days in a year, to help deal with the backlog of cases. Unfortunately, Act 459 has never been implemented.
Again, the Justice for All Programme, introduced in 2007 to adjudicate remand cases from time to time through special in-prison mobile court sittings, must be resorted to more regularly and expanded to clear backlogs and free up trial time in courts.
In December 2025, an event under this programme took place at the Kumasi Central Prisons, with 15 of 41 bail applications granted, whilst four pre-trial prisoners were discharged.
Police stations, airports and other similar facilities where suspects are held must be roped in on this and the programme thus expanded.
The use of mediation is another avenue worth pursuing. Some countries now compel mediation. Indeed, it is not strictly mandatory but is developing slowly, though showing promise.
When it becomes a precondition to trial, many low-value causes can be sieved from the cause list for actual trial, thereby helping clear backlogs.
Canada started victim-offender mediation, diverting criminal trials to mediation.
We have provided this in our Juvenile Justice Act. Why not formalise it in the criminal laws for adult offenders too?
Our laws have several features that can easily address the backlog of cases.
The only thing missing is investment in the Judiciary and sufficient sensitisation of stakeholders.
Reintroduction of the public tribunal system is certainly not the answer to our current challenges.
