Transparency Needed on Tribunal Members, Says Oquaye Jnr — Calls for Permanent Legislative Framework

Member of Parliament for Madina Mike Oquaye Jnr has raised concerns about the lack of transparency surrounding the composition of Ghana's public tribunals, arguing that citizens deserve to know who sits on these judicial bodies. His intervention highlights a broader conversation about accountability and permanence in the country's alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.

Speaking on the issue, Oquaye Jnr underscored that transparency in tribunal membership is essential for public confidence in the system. The MP's position reflects growing scrutiny of how these bodies operate and who presides over them — matters that directly affect how Ghanaians access justice outside the traditional court system.

The Case for Permanent Legal Framework

A key aspect of Oquaye Jnr's argument centres on the absence of permanent legislation governing tribunals. He noted that even leaders historically associated with promoting tribunal systems have not moved to enshrine them formally into Ghana's legal architecture. This oversight, he suggests, leaves tribunals operating in a somewhat precarious space — functional but not statutorily anchored.

Without legislation making tribunals a permanent feature, their status remains discretionary, potentially vulnerable to policy shifts or administrative changes. The lack of a solid legal foundation also means there are fewer safeguards ensuring consistency in how these bodies are constituted and how they operate across different regions and sectors.

Why This Matters for Ghana

Tribunals have become an important part of Ghana's justice delivery system, particularly for labour disputes, land matters, and commercial cases. They offer faster resolution than regular courts and are often more accessible to ordinary citizens. However, their informal nature — relative to the established courts — makes transparency and proper regulation all the more important.

The absence of clear, public information about tribunal members raises questions about the selection process, qualifications, and potential conflicts of interest. For a system designed to be accessible and fair, this ambiguity undermines public trust. Oquaye Jnr's call speaks to a wider demand: Ghanaians deserve to know who is adjudicating their disputes and on what authority they are doing so.

Establishing permanent legislation would also provide several benefits. It would standardise tribunal operations nationwide, ensure members meet consistent qualification requirements, and create clear appeal mechanisms. Such a framework would strengthen the rule of law whilst making the alternative dispute resolution system more robust and reliable for all Ghanaians.

The conversation Oquaye Jnr has started is timely. As Ghana continues to develop its justice sector, balancing traditional court systems with more accessible alternatives requires both transparency and proper legal grounding. Whether Parliament will respond with formal legislation remains to be seen, but the case for it appears increasingly compelling.