International corporate lawyer and entrepreneur, Victoria Bright, has urged the government to strengthen Ghana's existing courts and create specialised courts where necessary instead of establishing new public tribunals under the proposed Public Tribunal Bill.

Speaking on JoyNews' Newsfile on Saturday, July 18, Ms Bright said while the country must remain open to constitutional reforms, it should also exercise caution because of the painful history associated with public tribunals in Ghana.

She said that the debate should not focus simply on creating a new judicial structure, but on whether the proposed tribunals are genuinely needed and whether they can operate independently of political influence.

"The question for me is whether the system proposed by the bill is necessary. Is it necessary? Is it properly designed? And is it sufficiently protected from political interference and abuse? These are the core questions," she said.

Ms Bright said that the term "tribunal" still carries significant historical baggage because of its association with political persecution and human rights abuses during previous military regimes.

"There is a historical burden and government cannot ignore the fact that the word tribunal carries a very complex and deeply troubling history in our country," she said.

She acknowledged that the bill attempts to distance the proposed tribunals from those of the past by placing them within Ghana's judicial system and making them subject to the 1992 Constitution, the Evidence Act and criminal procedure rules. She also welcomed provisions guaranteeing legal representation and other procedural safeguards.

However, she said that public confidence would depend on how the system works in practice rather than the wording of the law.

"Public confidence will depend less on the language that we're all reading because we're very good at putting beautiful language in statutes. The focus will be more on how appointments, prosecutions and proceedings operate in practice," she stated.

Under the bill, regional tribunals will have concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court over offences including tax, customs and mining-related crimes, while district tribunals will share criminal jurisdiction with the Circuit Courts.

Ms Bright questioned the rationale behind creating a parallel judicial structure when the proposed tribunals would exercise powers similar to those already held by existing courts.

"If the tribunals will apply the same criminal procedure, the same Evidence Act and possess substantially the same powers as the High Court and the Circuit Court, why are new tribunals required rather than additional specialised divisions of the existing courts?" she asked.

She said the government must clearly demonstrate that the proposed tribunals would solve a specific institutional problem instead of adding another layer to an already complex judicial system.

Although she recognised the need for faster prosecution of offences such as illegal mining, commonly known as galamsey, Ms Bright said that specialised courts or revised court procedures would be a better solution.

"As things stand, I would have preferred that government went the other way and strengthened what we already had," she said.

She added that the rules of the existing courts could be amended to speed up the hearing of priority cases rather than creating an entirely new system.

Drawing on work undertaken by the Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana), she said that proposals had already been submitted to the Chief Justice to shorten timelines for parliamentary election petitions, demonstrating that reforms could be achieved within the current judicial framework.

Ms Bright also raised concerns about the possibility of forum shopping because the bill gives tribunals jurisdiction that overlaps with the High Court.

She warned that allowing prosecutors to choose whether a case is heard before a conventional court or a tribunal could create opportunities for selective prosecution.

"This creates a real danger of selective prosecution and forum shopping because a prosecutor can choose whether an accused person is tried before our conventional courts or before a tribunal exercising similar powers. There's no clear objective criteria for deciding which cases go to the tribunals and which will remain before the ordinary courts," she said.

She said that such discretion should not be left entirely to prosecutors.

Despite her reservations, Ms Bright acknowledged that the bill contains important safeguards, including the application of the Evidence Act, criminal procedure rules, open trials, legal representation, legal aid, recorded proceedings and the right to appeal.

"These are the guard rails," she said.

However, she expressed concern over the composition of the tribunals, particularly the provision allowing lay members to outvote the legally trained chairperson.

She warned that this could undermine the legal expertise expected in criminal proceedings, even though lay members would play a role similar to jurors in determining questions of fact.

She said the government must answer three critical questions before proceeding with the legislation.

First, she asked what specific failure within the existing court system justified the creation of tribunals. Second, she questioned what objective criteria would determine whether a case should be heard by a tribunal instead of an ordinary court. Third, she sought clear protections to prevent tribunals from becoming tools for political control or selective prosecution.

Ultimately, she said that the effectiveness of the Public Tribunal Bill should not be judged by the speed of convictions.

"The success of the bill will not be measured on how quickly tribunals convict people, but on whether they deliver justice independently, fairly, and without reviving the abuses that made them so feared in the past," she said.