When Television Becomes Courtroom: Do Ghanaian Laws Permit Media Personalities To Adjudicate Private Disputes? (2)

In Ghana, television shows often appear to act like courts, with personalities presiding over disputes among aggrieved individuals. While these programmes entertain audiences, they raise a crucial constitutional question: Can a privately operated media show assume the role of a legal court in Ghana? This inquiry is not meant to dismiss the positive impact of media-based dispute resolution, but to explore the legal limits of such programmes.

The core of this debate lies in the 1992 Constitution of Ghana, which lays out the framework for administering justice. Article 125 states that justice must be administered by the Judiciary, which is independent and subject only to the Constitution. This means that only the Judiciary, as established by law, has the power to adjudicate disputes.

Despite this, Ghanaian law does recognise popular participation in justice through public and customary tribunals, as well as the jury and assessor systems. The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) further legitimises alternative methods of dispute resolution, including arbitration, mediation and customary arbitration.

Mediation, in particular, is a non-binding process where parties resolve their conflict with the help of an impartial mediator. Consent is key, as mediation only begins when both parties agree to participate. Thus, a television presenter may legitimately serve as a mediator, facilitating dialogue between parties who voluntarily agree to resolve their dispute.

However, the presenter cannot assume the authority to determine legal rights and obligations, as mediators are not judges. Imposing decisions on parties without proper legal basis is unlawful. Another question arises regarding customary arbitration. Ghanaian law allows for customary arbitration, regulated by Act 798. Section 89 permits disputes to be submitted to customary arbitration, excluding criminal matters.

The arbitrator must act within their jurisdiction, follow natural justice, and obtain the parties' agreement to be bound by the outcome. The Supreme Court's decisions in Dzasimatu and Others v Dokosi and Others (1993-94) and Budu II v Caesar (1959) provide guidance on valid customary arbitration, emphasising voluntary submission, prior agreement, natural justice, and publication of the award.