Ghana’s new Tribunals Act puts ‘galamsey’, related cases on the fast track

Ghana has introduced a new system of Regional and District Tribunals with broad criminal jurisdiction and special procedures intended to accelerate the prosecution of illegal mining offences and other cases considered to be of significant public interest.

The Tribunals Act, 2026 (Act 1181), which received presidential assent on 26 August 2026, establishes the legal framework for the composition, jurisdiction and operation of the tribunals. It also introduces oversight mechanisms and provides a defined appeal structure within the existing judicial system.

Although tribunals are recognised under Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, the new Act gives practical effect to that constitutional framework and clarifies how the institutions will operate alongside the established courts.

Two-tier tribunal system

Act 1181 creates Regional Tribunals and District Tribunals as the two principal components of the tribunal system.

A Regional Tribunal will be chaired by a person qualified for appointment as a High Court judge. A District Tribunal, on the other hand, will be headed by a person qualified for appointment as a Circuit Court judge.

Both tribunals will also include panel members who may or may not be lawyers. The Chief Justice will be responsible for designating the members who sit on particular panels and determining the periods for which they serve.

The President will appoint the chairpersons of Regional Tribunals on the advice of the Judicial Council. The Chief Justice will appoint the other panel members after consulting the relevant Regional Coordinating Council and receiving the advice of the Judicial Council.

For District Tribunals, the Chief Justice will appoint the chairpersons, subject to presidential approval, and appoint panel members in consultation with the relevant District Assembly.

The law requires members to be persons of high moral character and proven integrity. Sitting Members of Parliament and holders of political office are disqualified from serving as tribunal chairpersons.

Broad criminal jurisdiction

Regional Tribunals will exercise concurrent original jurisdiction with the High Court in specified criminal matters. This means that certain offences may be tried either by a Regional Tribunal or by the High Court, depending on how the case is instituted.

A Regional Tribunal will also hear appeals from decisions of District Tribunals.

District Tribunals will exercise concurrent original jurisdiction with the Circuit Court in criminal cases. However, they will not have jurisdiction over treason, offences that must be tried on indictment or offences punishable by death.

The Act also expressly empowers District Tribunals to try several offences under the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).

Despite their broad criminal mandate, the tribunals cannot determine civil disputes, constitutional interpretation questions or cases involving alleged violations of human rights. They are also prohibited from handling matters which another law expressly excludes from their jurisdiction.

Where a constitutional interpretation issue arises during proceedings, the tribunal must refer the question to the Supreme Court and suspend the case until the Court provides its determination.

These limitations are important because they preserve the constitutional jurisdiction of the regular courts and prevent the tribunal system from developing into a parallel judicial structure operating outside established constitutional controls.

Illegal mining cases placed on a faster track

One of the most consequential aspects of Act 1181 is its special procedure for offences under the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703).

The law establishes strict timelines for the filing of charges, service of summonses, submission of defences and determination of preliminary objections. An accused person who intends to oppose a charge must generally file an answer within 10 days after being served with the summons.

The answer must state the facts on which the accused intends to rely and must be verified by an affidavit. Any preliminary legal objection must also be raised at that stage.

The procedure appears designed to prevent repeated preliminary applications and procedural delays from stalling illegal mining prosecutions before the substantive trial begins.

Trials covered by the special regime are expected to proceed on a day-to-day basis. Where continuous hearing is impracticable, an adjournment may generally not exceed 14 days. If a witness cannot attend for a reasonable cause, the next trial date must ordinarily be fixed within seven days.

A tribunal is also prohibited from granting an adjournment merely because counsel has another case in a different court.

These provisions signal a deliberate policy shift towards faster prosecution of illegal mining cases. They could reduce delays associated with prolonged adjournments, but their implementation will require adequate numbers of prosecutors, defence lawyers, judges, court staff and properly equipped tribunal facilities.

Speed must also remain subordinate to the constitutional right to a fair trial. Strict procedural timelines cannot lawfully deprive an accused person of sufficient time and facilities to prepare a defence.

Public proceedings and live broadcasts

Proceedings before a tribunal must generally be open to the public.

The Act goes further by allowing proceedings involving matters of public interest, including offences against the State, to be broadcast live when they are before a Regional Tribunal.

The Chief Justice may issue guidelines regulating live broadcasts and may impose conditions to protect witnesses, preserve the integrity of proceedings and prevent interference with the administration of justice.

District Tribunal proceedings, however, are subject to tighter media restrictions. The law limits live broadcasting and other forms of coverage that could compromise the privacy of parties or undermine a fair hearing.

The different approaches reflect the need to balance transparency with the protection of accused persons, witnesses and the integrity of ongoing proceedings.

Appeals and judicial supervision

A person dissatisfied with a decision of a District Tribunal may appeal to the Regional Tribunal. Decisions of a Regional Tribunal may, in turn, be appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The High Court retains supervisory jurisdiction over District Tribunals, while the Supreme Court continues to exercise its constitutional supervisory and interpretative authority.

Regional Tribunals will be bound by decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. District Tribunals will be bound by decisions of the High Court, Court of Appeal, Regional Tribunal and Supreme Court.

This appellate structure places the tribunals firmly within Ghana’s judicial hierarchy and provides safeguards against tribunals becoming legally isolated or exercising unchecked authority.

Oversight committee established

The Act establishes a Tribunal Oversight Committee to monitor the performance and efficiency of the tribunals.

The committee will investigate complaints of misconduct or inefficiency, recommend reforms, promote compliance with legal standards and submit annual reports to the Judicial Council.

Its membership will include representatives of the judiciary, the Attorney-General’s Office, the Ghana Bar Association, civil society and other institutions connected to the administration of justice.

Tribunals must maintain detailed records of their proceedings, including written judgments and electronic recordings. The Chief Justice is also required to establish an archive for tribunal records.

These provisions could improve transparency and institutional accountability, particularly if the committee’s reports and recommendations are made accessible to the public.

The real test lies in implementation

Act 1181 gives Ghana a detailed legal architecture for tribunals and places particular emphasis on the speedy prosecution of illegal mining cases. However, passing the law is only the first stage.

The effectiveness of the system will depend on the appointment of qualified and independent members, adequate funding, functioning electronic recording systems and strict observance of constitutional safeguards.

Tribunals may help reduce pressure on the conventional courts and shorten the time required to determine serious criminal cases. But if they are poorly resourced or perceived as politically influenced, their speed will do little to strengthen public confidence in justice.

The central challenge will therefore be to ensure that the pursuit of faster trials does not weaken the fairness, independence and accountability on which the legitimacy of the tribunal system ultimately depends.