Mahama signs controversial Tribunals Bill into law

President John Dramani Mahama has signed Ghana's controversial Tribunals Bill, 2026 into law, despite opposition from the parliamentary Minority, organised labour and former Vice-President Mahamudu Bawumia.

The bill, passed by Parliament on 16 July, reintroduces Regional and District Tribunals into Ghana's judicial system under Article 126 of the 1992 Constitution.

With the President's assent, the legislation has now become law and provides a constitutional and statutory framework for the operation of the tribunals.

The government says the new system is intended to modernise tribunal administration, improve access to justice and provide specialised adjudication for cases assigned to tribunals under the Constitution or other legislation.

Why was there opposition?

The legislation faced strong resistance in Parliament, with the Minority arguing that Ghana's existing judicial system did not require the proposed tribunals.

During the parliamentary debate, Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin moved for Clause 4, which provides for the establishment of Regional and District Tribunals, to be deleted.

He argued that the country's existing justice system was functioning and should not be replaced or supplemented by what he described as a potentially parallel structure.

“The Constitution says Parliament may determine. I am saying that this Parliament must know that the justice architecture we have is not a broken architecture,” he said.

The Majority rejected the proposal, with the motion to delete Clause 4 defeated by 135 votes to 16.

Parliament also waived the mandatory one-day interval between the consideration stage and third reading, allowing the bill to be passed on the same day.

The Minority subsequently withdrew from further consideration of the bill, accusing the Majority of refusing to accommodate its concerns.

Bawumia urged Mahama not to sign

The opposition to the legislation continued after Parliament passed it.

In a televised address on 19 July, Dr Bawumia directly appealed to President Mahama to withhold his assent.

“Mr President, do not sign this Bill. Pause, and let the nation talk,” he said.

Dr Bawumia argued that the legislation could fundamentally affect Ghana's justice delivery system and public confidence in the judiciary.

He also questioned why the government was proceeding with the bill before the publication of the report of the Constitution Review Committee, which he said had reportedly recommended removing Regional Tribunals from the Constitution.

The Trades Union Congress (TUC) also called for the bill to be withdrawn.

According to Dr Bawumia, the TUC had warned that the tribunal system could become “a potent tool for weaponising justice delivery”.

What does the new law provide?

The Tribunals Bill seeks to establish a formal legal framework for Regional and District Tribunals within Ghana's constitutional order.

It provides for a reformed tribunal system operating alongside the traditional courts, with provisions intended to safeguard due process and human rights.

The Minority, however, raised concerns about the composition of tribunal panels.

It objected to a provision allowing a three-member panel consisting of a lawyer as chairperson and two non-lawyers, arguing that non-lawyers should not sit in judgment over criminal cases.

The caucus also cited Ghana's historical experience with public tribunals during the PNDC era, warning that tribunal structures could potentially be

used to target individuals.

Those concerns are disputed by supporters of the legislation, who argue that the bill provides constitutional and statutory safeguards and is designed to move tribunal administration away from its historical controversies.

What happens next?

The President's assent means the legislation has crossed the parliamentary stage and is now law.

The Minority had previously indicated that it could seek judicial intervention if the President signed the bill.

The Ghana Bar Association and other legal stakeholders are also expected to scrutinise how the new tribunal system is implemented.

The immediate issue will therefore shift from the political dispute over whether the bill should have been passed to how the new law will operate and whether its implementation addresses the concerns raised by its opponents.