Majority Chief Whip, Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, has defended the government’s proposed tribunal bills, insisting they are aimed at improving the efficiency of Ghana’s justice delivery system rather than reviving the tribunals associated with the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC) era.
Speaking on PM Express on JoyNews on Monday, July 13, Mr Dafeamekpor acknowledged that concerns about tribunals remain deeply rooted but argued that the system has evolved significantly over the years through legal reforms and judicial decisions.
“This perceived apprehension about the tribunal system is quite deeply rooted. But it’s been dealt with by text writers, by judicial decisions, by the reforms that we’ve seen over the years.”
According to him, the tribunal system established under PNDC Law 78 differed substantially from the tribunal structure that operated under the Fourth Republic until reforms were introduced in 2002.
“Indeed, the nature, character, and structure of the tribunal systems that existed under PNDC, established by PNDC Law, I believe PNDC Law 78 at the time, were markedly different from the tribunal system that were until 2002, I should say, especially of the lower courts that were part of our judicial system.”
He explained that the tribunals largely mirrored the functions and structure of the regular courts, with the principal distinction being the inclusion of members of the public in the administration of justice.
“The only difference was we infused the participation of the public, of the people.”
Dafeamekpor said that philosophy was rooted in the Constitution, which declares that justice emanates from the people.
“The preamble to our Constitution is that justice emanates from the people. So there was this philosophy that some aspects of our judicial justice and delivery administration should include the participation of the generality of the people. And we still do.”
Drawing comparisons with the jury system, he argued that public participation in criminal trials is already a feature of Ghana’s judicial process.
“So even at the High Court, when somebody commits some of the serious offences, the court is empanelled by… the jury has to be empanelled. So the jury system was essentially with people selected from the public to come and listen to the evidence and the facts and assist the presiding judge to deliver justice in the matter.”
He explained that under the tribunal system, a legally qualified chairperson sits with two members of the public who may not necessarily be lawyers to hear cases and deliver decisions, while dissatisfied parties retain the right to appeal.
Tracing the history of the tribunal system, Dafeamekpor said that after the Fourth Republic began in January 1993, Parliament amended the Courts Act to expand the jurisdiction of community tribunals and circuit courts.
He noted that a second major reform came in 2002 when then Attorney-General Nana Akufo-Addo introduced amendments to the Courts Act that abolished community and circuit tribunals within the lower court structure and replaced them with district courts, circuit courts and family courts.
“The government did… practically proscribe the community tribunal system… and established what they called the lower courts.”
However, he stressed that regional tribunals were not abolished because they are entrenched in the Constitution and could only be removed through constitutional amendment.
Dafeamekpor recalled that regional tribunals continued to operate for several years, noting that as a young lawyer after graduating in 2009, he personally appeared before the Greater Accra Regional Tribunal.
He said the system gradually ceased operations around 2010 when then Chief Justice Georgina Wood stopped empanelling regional tribunals and promoted many of their chairpersons to the High Court bench.
“Effectively from about 2010, the regional tribunal still died, even though the Constitution… says it ought to be operationalised.”
The Majority Chief Whip argued that Ghana’s Judiciary continues to face overwhelming caseloads despite successive expansions of the court system. He said every year the Judiciary requests additional funding from Parliament to establish more courts because of the large number of pending criminal and civil cases.
“The picture that’s painted to Parliament is that they are inundated with work.”
According to him, several High Court divisions have been created over the past 16 years, while district courts have been established across the country in line with the legal requirement for every district to have at least one magistrate court. He also cited the modern Law Court Complex in Accra, which houses numerous specialised High Courts, including financial, criminal, land and matrimonial courts.
Despite those developments, Dafeamekpor said the demand for more courts continues to increase, making it necessary for government to operationalise the regional tribunals provided for under the Constitution and establish additional tribunals at the district level.
“As a government, it became necessary that, the Constitution says you must have regional tribunals.”
He said the proposed tribunals would complement existing district courts and High Courts rather than replace them, while focusing on specific categories of offences.
“Specifically in the bill, you’ll see that the memorandum speaks eloquently to focusing their operations on some specific offences.”
He said the tribunals are expected to handle cases involving illegal mining and environmental offences, economic fraud, tax and customs offences, damaging property, narcotics offences and the use of public office for profit.
According to him, the objective is to ensure the swift disposal of such cases, particularly illegal mining prosecutions.
“The cry has been that the regular courts are unable to deal with it… People are interested in the express delivery of handling of the matter.”
Dafeamekpor also outlined the timelines contained in the proposed legislation, explaining that an accused person would be required to enter an appearance within seven days after being served with criminal summons. Pre-trial proceedings would commence by the 10th day, trial by the 15th day, proceedings would conclude by the 21st day, and judgment would be delivered by the 42nd day.
“By the 42nd day, there should be judgment.”
He said hearings would generally proceed on a day-to-day basis, although courts would retain the discretion to grant adjournments where justified.
Responding to concerns that involving ordinary citizens in the adjudication of serious offences could be problematic, Dafeamekpor maintained that the arrangement would strengthen the justice system.
“In fact, it’s actually the best system of adjudication in any criminal trial.”
He argued that the proposal is comparable to the jury system in the United States, where peers participate in determining criminal cases.
“That’s why in the US system; the juror system is arguably very potent because you have your own peers assessing you. They don’t leave your fate in the hands of a presiding judge.”
He concluded that allowing ordinary citizens to sit alongside legally trained tribunal chairpersons is consistent with the Constitution’s guiding principle that justice should emanate from the people.
