Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin has warned that the government's proposed tribunals bill risks reviving the shortcomings of the PNDC-era justice system, arguing that Ghana should instead strengthen its existing courts through reforms.

The Tribunals Bill, 2026 was laid before Parliament by Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Dr Dominic Ayine, presented on his behalf by the Minister of Lands and Natural Resources, Emmanuel Armah-Kofi Buah, on June 26, 2026, with the object of establishing a legal framework for the establishment, jurisdiction, composition and operation of tribunals in accordance with the Constitution, and creating a Tribunal Oversight Committee, aimed at strengthening access to justice and promoting due process.

The Tribunals Bill, 2026 was laid before Parliament by Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Dr Dominic Ayine, presented on his behalf by the Minister of Lands and Natural Resources, Emmanuel Armah-Kofi Buah, on June 26, 2026, with the object of establishing a legal framework for the establishment, jurisdiction, composition and operation of tribunals in accordance with the Constitution, and creating a Tribunal Oversight Committee, aimed at strengthening access to justice and promoting due process.

Speaking exclusively on Joy FM's Super Morning Show, the Effutu MP said the country's justice system had moved beyond what he described as "tsoo boi, let the blood flow" justice and cautioned against establishing a tribunal system that could sidestep due process.

"Our main concern is that just as in the PNDC era, the so-called tribunal did not follow due process. It is likely to be revisited," he said.

Afenyo-Markin referenced a previous public exchange involving former National Democratic Congress (NDC) official Alex Segbefia, who, according to him, rejected calls by a party foot soldier for individuals to be jailed without trial and instead insisted on adherence to due process.

The Minority Leader also questioned the proposed composition of the tribunal panels, particularly the provision requiring only the chairperson to possess legal qualifications while the remaining two members may be laypersons.

"That is wrong," he argued, saying Ghana's justice system must contain sufficient safeguards to prevent abuse.

According to him, personal grievances or "sheer pettiness" could influence decisions if adequate legal expertise is absent from tribunal panels.

Rather than establishing a new adjudicating body, Afenyo-Markin urged government to focus on reforming the Judiciary by investing in technology, infrastructure and judicial capacity.

He cited concerns raised by a retired Supreme Court judge during a memorial lecture in honour of the late former Speaker of Parliament, D.F. Annan, as evidence that attention should be directed towards improving the existing justice system.

"Even the judiciary we have today, we all have concerns," he said, adding that those concerns should lead to efforts to "reform and retool" the courts instead of creating a parallel structure.

He advocated the digitisation of court processes and improved conditions for judges to enhance the delivery of justice.

Afenyo-Markin further argued that Ghana's appellate system already provides adequate safeguards against judicial errors.

He cited the cocaine case involving Tagor and Issah Abass as an example, noting that the Court of Appeal overturned an earlier High Court decision after determining that the legal requirements to establish the offence had not been met.

According to him, the case demonstrated that the existing court system is capable of correcting mistakes through the appeals process.

"We should perfect it, rather than to say that you now want a Cho Boi approach," he said.

The proposed tribunals bill has generated significant public debate, with the government insisting it is intended to speed up the trial of specific offences and reduce the growing backlog of cases before the courts. However, critics argue that aspects of the proposal require further scrutiny to ensure they do not undermine due process or judicial independence.