Six citizens, including four Members of Parliament, a New Patriotic Party (NPP) vice-chairman and a media professional, have invoked the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to challenge the constitutionality of the Tribunals Act, 2026 (Act 1181), arguing that Parliament lacks the authority to establish a separate tribunals system and has introduced provisions that undermine judicial independence.
The plaintiffs contend that the Act exceeds Parliament’s powers under the 1992 Constitution by creating a tribunals structure, regulating its procedures, transferring administrative responsibilities to the Judicial Council and restricting the Chief Justice’s authority.
They argue that these arrangements violate constitutional safeguards governing judicial power, administration and independence.
The action has been brought by Habib Iddrisu, Deputy Minority
Chief Whip and MP for Tolon; Kwame Anyimadu-Antwi, MP for Asante Akim Central; Henry Nana Boakye, Vice-Chairman of the NPP; Nana Asafo-Adjei Ayeh, MP for Bosome Freho; Anthony Mmieh, MP for Odotobri; and Paul Adom Otchere, a media professional with Metro TV.
They have sued the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, representing the Republic of Ghana.
The plaintiffs’ principal argument is that Parliament has no power under Article 126(1) of the Constitution to establish a separate “Tribunals System”.
They are consequently challenging sections 2(1)(a) and 4(1) of Act 1181, which they say provide for an institutional arrangement outside the judicial structure authorised by the Constitution.
If the Court upholds this argument, it could strike at the foundation of the legislation and the statutory basis for the tribunals system.
The writ also challenges sections 27(1)(6), 27(3), 29, 30 to 41 and 51, which regulate tribunal practice and procedure.
The plaintiffs argue that these provisions conflict with Articles 127(1) and 157(2), which safeguard judicial independence and provide the constitutional framework for regulating judicial procedures.
They contend that Parliament has assumed authority over procedural matters that cannot be regulated in a manner inconsistent with the judiciary’s constitutional powers.
On judicial administration, the plaintiffs are challenging sections 5 and 49(2), which they say vest administrative control over tribunals in the Judicial Council, with the involvement of a Tribunal Oversight Committee.
They argue that the arrangement violates Articles 125(4) and 127 by interfering with the constitutional allocation of administrative authority within the judiciary.
They further contend that sections 5 and 44 amount to parliamentary interference with judicial power, contrary to Article 127(2), while section 42, which provides for the Tribunal Oversight Committee as part of the Judicial Council, allegedly breaches Article 154(2).
The Chief Justice’s administrative authority is another focus of the action. The plaintiffs argue that section 50(2), by limiting that authority, violates Article 125(4).
They also challenge sections 4(2) and 42 under Article 127(1), alleging that the provisions undermine judicial independence.
The plaintiffs are seeking declarations that Parliament lacks constitutional authority to establish a separate tribunals system; that the provisions governing tribunal procedures are invalid; and that the administrative, oversight and other arrangements challenged in the writ are unconstitutional.
They are also asking the Court for any further reliefs it considers appropriate.
The action comes amid wider debate over the constitutional status of Regional Tribunals.
The Constitution Review Committee recommended their disestablishment from the Constitution, which would remove them from the structure of the superior courts. The Government, however, does not accept the recommendation.
The Supreme Court is therefore being asked to determine not only the constitutionality of specific provisions of Act 1181 but also the limits of Parliament’s authority in establishing and regulating tribunals within Ghana’s judicial system.
A ruling in favour of the plaintiffs could have significant implications for the Act’s validity and the institutional arrangements it establishes.
The claims in the writ remain the plaintiffs’ arguments and are yet to be determined by the Court.
