ADR Centre pushes back against on-air settlement of disputes
In a statement issued on Tuesday, 14 April, the Centre said it had observed an increasing tendency by some media organisations and individuals to conduct public dispute sessions outside the recognised legal and professional framework for alternative dispute resolution.
Ghana’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Centre is drawing a firm line against the rising use of radio, television and online live programmes to handle private disputes, saying the trend threatens the proper administration of ADR.
The warning comes amid concern that some media platforms and individuals are increasingly turning conflict resolution into a public spectacle, even though ADR is meant to follow formal legal and ethical procedures.
In a statement dated Tuesday, 14 April, the Centre said that while the media can play a valuable role in broadening public understanding of justice issues, dispute resolution must not be reduced to improvised studio sessions that ignore core principles such as confidentiality, consent and neutrality.
The Centre’s position is that negotiation, mediation and arbitration are not casual interventions but regulated processes requiring trained and certified practitioners. Without those safeguards, it said, parties may be exposed to reputational damage and the outcome may carry no legal weight.
Francis Kofi Korankye-Sakyi, the Acting Executive Secretary, signed the statement, which stressed that ADR in Ghana is governed by the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010, and must be conducted within recognised professional standards.
Rather than simply criticising the practice, the Centre says it will now engage the National Media Commission and the Ghana Journalists Association to work out guidelines that would allow media institutions to discuss and promote ADR without crossing ethical and legal lines.
It also signalled that it may move against what it considers unregulated or unethical ADR-related conduct.
For members of the public, the Centre’s advice is to seek help only from the ADR Centre itself or from recognised private ADR institutions, where disputes can be handled lawfully, fairly and with the necessary professional oversight.
Its broader message is that ADR remains one of the country’s most important tools for peaceful and efficient dispute resolution, but only if its standards are protected.
