Parliament’s passage of the Tribunals Bill, 2026 has reignited one of Ghana’s most sensitive constitutional debates. The legislation, approved on July 17, 2026 despite strong opposition from the Minority in Parliament and the Trades Union Congress (TUC), seeks to establish a legal framework for the establishment, composition, jurisdiction and operation of tribunals, while creating a Tribunal Oversight Committee.
According to government, the Bill is intended to strengthen access to justice, promote due process, safeguard the rights of citizens and improve the efficient administration of justice, particularly in specialised cases. These are legitimate policy objectives. Every democratic society must continuously improve its justice system to ensure that justice is delivered efficiently, fairly and without undue delay.
But the Bill has generated considerable controversy before its passage. The Minority rejected it on grounds that it could weaken judicial independence, create an unnecessary parallel judicial structure and revive institutions associated with painful chapters of Ghana’s political history. The Trades Union Congress (TUC) similarly urged government to suspend the legislation, arguing that tribunals continue to evoke memories of political interference in the administration of justice.
The New Patriotic Party’s presidential candidate, Dr Mahamudu Bawumia, has also called for restraint. In a statement issued over the weekend, he urged President John Dramani Mahama to withhold assent to the Bill and instead initiate broader stakeholder consultations before it becomes law. His intervention reflects the growing view that legislation with significant constitutional implications should command broad national consensus rather than be perceived as a partisan initiative.
Whether one agrees with these objections or not, they raise legitimate constitutional questions that deserve careful national reflection rather than hurried legislative action. Democracy is not measured merely by the numerical strength of a parliamentary majority. It is equally defined by consultation, consensus-building and public confidence in the laws enacted by Parliament.
It is against this background that The Chronicle finds the timing of the Tribunals Bill particularly intriguing.
President John Dramani Mahama deserves commendation for establishing the Constitutional Review Committee (CRC), chaired by constitutional scholar Professor H. Kwasi Prempeh, to examine the 1992 Constitution and recommend reforms capable of strengthening Ghana’s democratic governance. The Committee’s work has generated considerable public interest because it represents an opportunity to build broad national consensus on constitutional reforms.
Public reports indicate that the Committee has recommended abolishing Regional Tribunals, concluding that the High Court is capable of exercising their jurisdiction and those resources would be better invested in strengthening the existing court system.
Significantly, this is not an entirely new recommendation. The Constitution Review Commission, established by the late President John Evans Atta Mills and chaired by Professor Emeritus Albert Kodzo Fiadjoe, reportedly reached a similar conclusion after extensive nationwide consultations. That Commission also recommended abolishing Regional Tribunals because many citizens associated them with the excesses of earlier military regimes and believed the regular courts were better suited to administer justice.
When two constitutional review bodies, established years apart under different administrations, reportedly arrive at substantially the same recommendation, prudence demands that policymakers give their conclusions serious consideration.
This is precisely where our concern lies. If government has initiated a constitutional review process expected to shape Ghana’s governance for generations, should Parliament proceed with legislation that appears inconsistent with recommendations emerging from that very process before government has formally considered and announced its position on them?
The Chronicle is not suggesting that Parliament lacks the constitutional authority to pass the Tribunals Bill. Neither are we questioning government’s desire to improve the administration of justice. Our concern is one of consistency, prudence and public confidence.
Good governance requires coherence. One arm of government should not appear to move in a direction that raises questions about another major national reform initiative undertaken by the same administration. There is little to lose by allowing the constitutional review process to run its full course before implementing legislation that touches on one of its central issues.
The 1992 Constitution has undoubtedly served Ghana well for more than three decades. Nevertheless, there is broad agreement that aspects of it require reform to address contemporary governance challenges. That explains why successive governments have established constitutional review bodies, although many of their recommendations have remained unimplemented.
The Chronicle, therefore, urges President Mahama to exercise restraint by withholding assent to the Tribunals Bill until government has formally considered and announced its position on the Constitutional Review Committee’s recommendations. Such an approach would reinforce public confidence in both the constitutional review process and the government’s commitment to consultative and evidence-based governance.
For more news, join The Chronicle Newspaper channel on WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VbBSs55E50UqNPvSOm2z
