Why the Tribunals Act is being challenged at the Supreme Court

Six individuals, including four Members of Parliament from the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and broadcaster Paul Adom-Otchere, have taken legal action at the Supreme Court seeking to have several provisions of the Tribunals Act, 2026 (Act 1181), declared unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs argue that the legislation interferes with the constitutional independence of the Judiciary and improperly regulates the administration and operation of the tribunal system.

They are asking the Supreme Court to determine whether Parliament acted within its constitutional authority when it passed the law establishing the framework for the operation of tribunals in Ghana.

The action, contained in a writ dated August 27, 2026, was filed against the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.

The plaintiffs are Kwame Anyimadu-Antwi, Member of Parliament for Asante Akim Central; Habib Iddrisu, Deputy Minority Chief Whip and MP for Tolon; Nana Asafo-Adjei Ayeh, MP for Bosome Freho; and Anthony Mmieh, MP for Odotobri.

The other two plaintiffs are Henry Nana Boakye, Second Vice Chairman of the NPP, and broadcaster Paul Adom-Otchere.

Plaintiffs question Parliament's authority to establish tribunals

At the centre of the legal challenge is the interpretation of Article 126(1) of the 1992 Constitution, which deals with the structure of the Judiciary.

The plaintiffs contend that the provision does not give Parliament the constitutional authority to establish a tribunal system in the manner provided under Act 1181.

They are consequently seeking declarations that Sections 2(1)(a) and 4(1) of the Act are inconsistent with the Constitution.

Their case also challenges several provisions dealing with how the tribunals are expected to conduct proceedings.

These include Sections 27(1)(b), 27(3), 29 to 41 and 51 of the Act.

According to the plaintiffs, the provisions improperly regulate the practice and procedure of the tribunals in a manner inconsistent with Articles 157(2) and 127(1) of the Constitution.

They are therefore asking the Supreme Court to examine whether Parliament exceeded its constitutional powers by prescribing those procedures.

Administrative powers of Chief Justice also contested

Another major issue raised in the suit concerns the administrative control of the proposed tribunal system.

The plaintiffs argue that certain provisions of Act 1181 improperly transfer or interfere with administrative responsibilities constitutionally vested in the Judiciary.

In particular, they challenge Sections 5 and 49(2), which they say give administrative authority to the Judicial Council in consultation with the Tribunal Oversight Committee.

They maintain that the arrangement is inconsistent with Articles 125(4) and 127 of the Constitution.

The plaintiffs are also asking the court to declare Sections 5 and 44 unconstitutional on the grounds that they amount to interference by Parliament in the exercise of judicial power.

Their challenge extends to Section 42, which establishes the Tribunal Oversight Committee as a committee of the Judicial Council.

They further question Section 50(2), arguing that it places unconstitutional limitations on the administrative authority of the Chief Justice.

The plaintiffs want the Supreme Court to clarify the constitutional boundaries between Parliament's legislative powers and the Judiciary's responsibility for administering justice.

Supreme Court asked to exercise original jurisdiction

The action invokes the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction under Articles 2(1)(b) and 130(1)(a) of the 1992 Constitution.

Through these provisions, the plaintiffs are seeking declarations that the disputed sections of the Tribunals Act are inconsistent with the Constitution and should therefore be declared unconstitutional.

The Attorney-General, who has been named as the defendant, is required to file a statement of case within 14 days after being served with the plaintiffs' statement of case.

The court will subsequently consider the constitutional questions raised by the action.

Background to the Tribunals Act

The legal challenge follows Parliament's passage of the Tribunals Bill, 2026, in July amid opposition from the Minority Caucus and concerns expressed by organised labour.

The Minority boycotted proceedings leading to the passage of the legislation, arguing that the proposed tribunal system raised serious constitutional and judicial independence concerns.

President John Dramani Mahama subsequently assented to the Bill on August 26, 2026, making it part of Ghana's laws.

The legislation is intended to provide a legal framework for the establishment, jurisdiction, composition and operation of tribunals, with the broader objective of improving the administration of justice.

The government has maintained that the framework will help strengthen access to justice and enable certain categories of cases to be handled more efficiently.

However, the plaintiffs contend that the objective of improving justice delivery cannot justify arrangements that, in their view, conflict with the Constitution.

The Supreme Court is yet to determine whether the challenged provisions of Act 1181 are unconstitutional.

Until the court rules otherwise, the filing of the action does not, by itself, invalidate the legislation.