The government has brushed aside strong opposition from the Trades Union Congress (TUC) and the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Minority Caucus in Parliament to pass the Tribunals Bill, 2026, into law, setting the stage for the reintroduction of public tribunals under a new legal framework.

The passage came on the same day the TUC held a press conference in Accra demanding the immediate withdrawal of the Bill, with the government using its parliamentary majority to extend proceedings late into the night and secure approval of the legislation.

The move was interpreted by the opposition as a show of political strength by the Majority, which pushed the Bill through despite mounting concerns from organised labour, civil society groups and the NPP Minority.

The Bill was passed after Parliament sat into the early hours of Friday, following the Majority’s decision to waive the mandatory one-day interval between the consideration stage and the third reading.

The NPP Minority Caucus, which had strongly opposed the legislation during deliberations, staged a walkout before the final approval, accusing the government of forcing through a law that could create a parallel justice system outside the constitutional framework.

Minority stages walkout over “kangaroo court” fears

Addressing journalists after leaving the chamber, Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin said the Bill sought to establish an adjudicating body that was unknown to Ghana’s constitutional order and threatened the principles of fair trial and due process.

He argued that rather than addressing challenges within the existing judicial system, the government was attempting to create a separate structure with overlapping powers.

“Our contention as Minority is that this Bill seeks to create a parallel system, an analogous system unknown to the Constitution, if we read all provisions of the Constitution as a whole,” he said.

The Minority Leader said the major concern of the caucus centred on Clause 4 of the Bill, which allows the chairperson of a tribunal panel to be a lawyer while the other two members could be non-lawyers.

He questioned the wisdom of allowing persons without legal training to sit on panels handling criminal matters.

“They are going to preside over criminal matters. If there are issues with the system, the way to go is to reform and resource, equip and retool it. It is not to create a parallel system with coordinate jurisdiction,” he argued.

Mr Afenyo-Markin warned that the arrangement could undermine justice delivery and create situations where individuals could be convicted without adequate safeguards.

He cautioned that the system could become a platform where “people would be pronounced guilty even before their case was properly determined,” with no established procedure to guarantee fairness.

Minority recalls PNDC-era tribunal abuses

The Minority Leader also raised historical concerns over the operations of public tribunals during the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) era, arguing that the system was previously associated with political persecution and abuse of power.

He alleged that tribunals at the time were used to target individuals, confiscate properties and enrich some members who served on the panels.

“We know what happened in the PNDC era, where people were targeted, assets were seized, and those people who claimed they were tribunal members enriched themselves. We know that record,” he said.

Mr Afenyo-Markin maintained that Ghana already has established judicial structures, including the High Court, Court of Appeal and specialised courts dealing with commercial, financial crime and matrimonial matters.

He argued that the government should focus on strengthening those institutions rather than introducing a new tribunal system.

TUC demands withdrawal

The TUC had earlier mounted strong opposition to the Bill, calling on the government to withdraw it and publish the full report of the Constitution Review Committee before proceeding with constitutional reforms.

The union argued that pushing ahead with the legislation without making the full review report public undermined transparency and weakened public confidence in the constitutional amendment process.

Addressing a press conference in Accra on Thursday, TUC Secretary-General Joshua Ansah said the Congress had carefully examined the Bill and consulted stakeholders before arriving at its position.

He said the TUC had supported the constitutional review process initiated by the government through the establishment of the Constitution Review Committee chaired by Professor Kwasi Prempeh in January 2025.

However, he expressed concern that although the committee submitted its final report in December 2025, only a summary of its recommendations had been released.

According to him, the government’s official response to the recommendations had also not been published, denying citizens the opportunity to properly engage with proposed constitutional changes.

“We had expected the government to publish the full report of the Constitution Review Committee and its position on the recommendations before any action is taken on changing the Constitution,” Mr Ansah said.

TUC rejects revival of Regional Tribunals

The labour movement argued that the government was selectively implementing recommendations from the Constitution Review Committee by pursuing amendments that supported its agenda while withholding the full report.

Mr Ansah said the approach amounted to a “pick and choose” strategy that could undermine confidence in the reform process.

On the Tribunals Bill specifically, the TUC said both its own submissions and the recommendations of the Constitution Review Committee supported the removal of Regional Tribunals from the Constitution.

He explained that the TUC had previously argued that Regional Tribunals were no longer necessary because the High Court had effectively absorbed their functions.

The union was therefore surprised that government was attempting to reactivate the tribunal system despite those recommendations.

“In the face of these clear recommendations both by the TUC and the Constitution Review Committee, it is baffling to us that government is attempting to activate the Tribunals,” he stated.

The TUC warned that Ghana’s historical experience with public tribunals made the proposed law risky, arguing that it could become a tool for political interference and the weaponisation of justice.

The Congress urged President John Dramani Mahama and Parliament to halt the process and instead channel resources into improving the existing judiciary.

“The Bill must be withdrawn from Parliament,” Mr Ansah insisted.

Govt defends Bill as justice delivery reform

Despite the opposition, the Majority Caucus maintained that the Bill contained adequate safeguards and was necessary to address delays in Ghana’s justice system.

Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Dr Dominic Ayine, who introduced the legislation, argued that the proposed law was designed to improve access to justice, reduce court backlogs and restore tribunals within constitutional safeguards.

During proceedings, Dr Ayine moved for the House to waive the mandatory one-day interval between the consideration stage and the third reading to allow the Bill to be passed.

“Mr Speaker, may I move that, notwithstanding the provision in Order 172, sub-order 1 of the Standing Orders, the motion for the third reading of the Tribunals Bill, 2026 may be moved today,” he said.

Following approval of the waiver, Parliament proceeded with the third reading and passed the Bill.

The legislation will now be transmitted to President John Dramani Mahama for assent before becoming law.

A battle over justice reform

The passage of the Tribunals Bill has deepened the debate over the future direction of Ghana’s justice system, with government presenting the legislation as a solution to delays while critics fear it could undermine judicial independence.

While the Majority insists the new framework will improve access to justice, the Minority and organised labour remain convinced that strengthening existing courts is the safer path.

The controversy now moves to the presidency, where the final decision on whether the Bill becomes law rests with President Mahama.