The debate over the establishment of Regional Tribunals in Ghana has resurfaced following the passing of the Tribunal Bill, 2026. Some critics argue that because tribunals established under previous military governments were associated with abuse of human rights, Ghana should never establish Regional Tribunals again. While those concerns are understandable, they should not become a reason to disregard an institution expressly recognised by the Constitution.

The proper constitutional approach is not to reject Regional Tribunals altogether, but to ensure that they operate within a comprehensive legal framework that guarantees judicial independence, due process, and accountability.

The Historical Argument

The strongest criticism is that tribunals during previous military regimes committed human rights violations. History records that some tribunals operated without constitutional protections that exist today. Certain proceedings were criticised for failing to guarantee fair trial rights.

On January 31, 1992, Human Rights Watch made publication on the Tribunal system and indicated that, “the Tribunals do not permit the consideration of what are described as legal technicalities." Members were appointed by the PNDC secretariat with no specified rules to comply with, which resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice. Indeed, the memorandum of the Tribunal Bill, 2026 acknowledged these breaches and concerns.

However, this historical experience should not be used to reject every tribunal forever. That reasoning would produce absurd results. For instance, Police officers have sometimes abused their powers, yet Ghana has not abolished the Police Service. Instead, Parliament enacted laws regulating police conduct. In the same way, some judges have been removed for misconduct, yet nobody argues that Ghana should abolish the courts.

Some Ghanaians have expressed great concern about the conduct of Members of Parliament, yet Parliament continues to exist.

It is therefore the view of the writer that the lesson from the abuse should not be a call for abolition, but rather a call for stronger regulation and oversight.

Constitutional Recognition

The framers of the 1992 Constitution deliberately retained Regional Tribunals as part of Ghana's superior courts. Articles 126(1) and 142–143 provide for the Superior Courts of Judicature, which include the Regional Tribunals. This demonstrates that the Constitution itself recognises that Regional Tribunals have a legitimate place within Ghana's justice system.

The Constitution, 1992, under clause(1) of Article 125, provides that “Justice emanates from the people and shall be administered in the name of the Republic by the Judiciary which shall be independent and subject only to this Constitution.”

Similarly, clause(2) of Article 125 provides for citizens to “exercise popular participation in the administration of justice through the institutions of public and customary tribunals and the jury and assessor systems.”

It should be noted that, unlike the revolutionary tribunals of the past, the Regional Tribunals established under the Constitution of 1992 are judicial institutions subject to constitutional safeguards, judicial independence, and appellate review. Their existence is therefore not an accident but a conscious constitutional choice.

Constitutional Safeguards Today

Unlike the tribunals of earlier political eras, any Regional Tribunal operating under the 1992 Constitution would be bound by:

• Article 19 (right to a fair trial);
• Article 23 (administrative justice);
• Article 125 (judicial independence);
• Article 296 (exercise of discretionary power);
• The supervisory jurisdiction of the superior courts; and
• The appellate process established by law.

These constitutional safeguards are clearly indicated as the guiding principles for the Tribunal under clause 3 of the Tribunal Bill, 2026. The provision records that a tribunal is mandated in the adjudication of a case, to observe the principle of fairness, transparency, expedition, and efficiency while ensuring greater respect for the fundamental human rights and freedoms of persons; and only subject to the Constitution and other applicable enactments.  These safeguards will substantially reduce the possibility of arbitrary proceedings.

Why an Act of Parliament Is the Solution

The Constitution provides for Regional Tribunals, but Parliament can enact legislation clearly defining their jurisdiction, appointment procedures, qualifications of tribunal members, criminal procedure, appeals, judicial ethics, and disciplinary mechanisms.

This is precisely how Ghana regulates other courts and the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court all derive much of their operational framework from legislation such as the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), Criminal and Other Offences Procedure Act 1960 (Act 30) and subsidiary Legislation such as the High Court (Civil Procedure ) Rules, 2004 (C.I 47), C.I 16 for the Court of Appeal and C.I 19 for the Supreme Court.

With these rules enacted to guide our courts, no one argues that because courts once made erroneous decisions they should be abolished. Instead, Parliament refines the legal framework and appellate courts correct mistakes through appeals.

Therefore, Regional Tribunals deserve the same treatment.

Importance of Regional Tribunals

One of the key challenges facing Ghana's justice system is delay. High Courts are burdened with thousands of pending cases, resulting in prolonged litigation. Some jurists argue that delays in litigation in the courts give merit to ADR and this is what we experience every day in our judicial system.

Regional Tribunals are not designed to replace the High Courts. Rather, they complement the existing judicial structure and increase the capacity of the Judiciary to deliver justice efficiently.

This position is clearly stated under clause 6 of the Tribunal Bill, 2026, which specifies the nature of the relationship between a tribunal and the judicial system. The memorandum of the bill stipulates that;

 “A tribunal is required to function as part of the judicial system of the country and collaborate with other judicial bodies to ensure consistency in the administration of justice. The clause also provides that the decision of a tribunal is subject to appellate review in accordance with the Bill. The clause also specifies the courts whose decisions are binding on a Regional Tribunal to be the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court and indicates that a District Tribunal is to be bound by a decision of the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court”.

Therefore, the argument that the Regional Tribunal is coming to replace the High Court system does not hold any water. Since the bill itself cures this misconception.

The establishment of Regional Tribunals will reduce this backlog by sharing the workload, allowing cases within their jurisdiction to be heard more quickly. Faster justice benefits victims, accused persons, businesses, and society as a whole.

Again, modern justice systems increasingly rely on specialised courts because certain disputes require specialised expertise. Therefore, Regional Tribunals may be assigned jurisdiction over some of these crimes or disputes. It’s in light of this that under clause 16 of the Tribunal Bill, 2026, the Tribunal has been given jurisdiction on;

• Offences specified under Chapter Four of Part Three of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29);
• Offences which arise under the Narcotics Control Commission Act, 2020 (Act 1019);
• Offences under The Income Tax Act, 2015 (Act 896); Offences under the Customs Act, 2015 (Act 891); and
• Offences under The Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703);

The bill further gives the Tribunal jurisdiction over an offence which involves economic fraud or loss of State Funds or property and, in accordance with Article 143 of the Constitution, and offence against the State and the public interest as Parliament may by law prescribe.

This promotes consistency, efficiency, and informed decision-making.

In addition, a decentralised justice system reduces the need for litigants to travel long distances to seek justice. Regional Tribunals situated across Ghana can make justice more accessible while reducing congestion in the High Courts.

It is also common knowledge that Investors and businesses prefer countries with efficient judicial systems. A properly functioning tribunal system strengthens confidence in the rule of law by ensuring commercial and regulatory disputes are resolved promptly.

Conclusion

The debate should not be whether Ghana should establish Regional Tribunals. The Constitution has already answered that question by recognising them as part of the Superior Courts of Judicature.

The real issue is ensuring they operate within a robust statutory framework that guarantees independence, fairness, transparency, and accountability. On this, the Constitution, 1992 encourages anyone who professes that any part of an enactment contravenes the Constitution to bring the matter to the Supreme Court to declare it null and void.

Using historical abuses to oppose Regional Tribunals entirely is constitutionally and logically unsound. Institutions should be judged by the laws that regulate them, not solely by mistakes made under different constitutional orders.

Just as Ghana regulates its courts through the Courts Act and procedural rules, Parliament can enact comprehensive legislation governing Regional Tribunals, so they serve their constitutional purpose while fully protecting the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the 1992 Constitution.