Adoa News Adoa News
Minority Leader, Alexander Afenyo-Markin has urged Parliament to delete a key provision in the proposed Tribunals Bill, 2026, arguing that the creation of district and regional tribunals would establish a parallel justice system and disrupt Ghana’s existing judicial framework.
The Bill, currently before Parliament, seeks to reintroduce public tribunals to strengthen the administration of justice and improve access to justice across the country. It also aims to operationalise Article 126 of the 1992 Constitution, which provides for tribunals within Ghana’s judicial system but has remained largely inactive for decades.
If enacted, the legislation would establish district and regional tribunals to operate alongside the conventional courts, while introducing oversight mechanisms and safeguards intended to protect due process and human rights.
Speaking during parliamentary debate on the Bill on Thursday, July 16, Mr. Afenyo-Markin called for the complete deletion of Clause 4, which provides for the establishment of the proposed tribunals.
“Mr. Speaker, I move that the entire Clause 4 be deleted. My reason is very simple,” he stated.
According to the Minority Leader, although Articles 125 and 126 of the Constitution recognise the existence of tribunals, they do not make their establishment mandatory.
He argued that Parliament should focus on strengthening the country’s existing courts instead of creating additional judicial institutions.
“The Constitution says Parliament may determine. I am saying that this Parliament must know that the justice architecture we have is not a broken architecture,” he said.
Mr. Afenyo-Markin maintained that Ghana already has a well-established court hierarchy comprising district courts, circuit courts, High Courts, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and questioned the need for another layer of adjudicatory bodies.
“What kind of chaos are we introducing? You have a district court, you have a circuit court, you have a High Court, you have a Court of Appeal—you have a judiciary architecture that is not broken,” he argued.
He also rejected suggestions that dissatisfaction with certain judicial decisions should justify the creation of a new tribunal system.
“The disagreement we may have with certain pronouncements of certain judges does not mean that we create some parallel structures that we call a justice system,” he said.
The Minority Leader further questioned the proposed jurisdiction of the tribunals, saying the Bill does not clearly define whether they would primarily handle civil or criminal matters or explain how they would fit into the existing judicial hierarchy.
“How on earth do we create a new system to compete with a known system just because somewhere in the Constitution certain pronouncements are made?” he asked.
Instead of establishing tribunals, Mr. Afenyo-Markin called for increased investment in the judiciary, including the digitisation of court processes, improved infrastructure and better logistical support for judges to enhance the speed and efficiency of justice delivery.
He warned that introducing a parallel tribunal system could create confusion, weaken public confidence in the judiciary and complicate the administration of justice.
“I contend that creating this new tribunal system by this proposal will bring chaos to the justice delivery system we have in our country,” he cautioned.
The Tribunals Bill, 2026, forms part of the government’s broader judicial reform agenda aimed at reviving the constitutional tribunal system through the establishment of district and regional tribunals. Government argues the reforms will improve access to justice, reduce pressure on the conventional courts and strengthen judicial oversight while safeguarding due process and fundamental human rights.
However, the proposal has attracted criticism from sections of the opposition and organised labour. The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has also called for the suspension of the Bill, arguing that it should await the publication of the Constitutional Review Committee’s report and warning that aspects of the legislation could expose the judiciary to political influence.