Judicial Warning: Chiefs Urged to Limit ADR to Civil and Traditional Reservations
Justice Angelina Mensah-Homiah, a member of Ghana’s Court of Appeal, has issued a clear cautIon to chiefs within the Asogli State about adjudicating criminal matters through the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism. The judiciary’s stance underscores the principle that crime and punishment fall within the formal adjudicatory reach of the state, and should not be outsourced to traditional or ADR channels designed primarily for civil disputes or community reconciliation.
The admonition came during an ADR sensitisation engagement where the judge emphasized the foundational roles of ADR in decongesting courts and fostering community-based dispute resolution. While ADR has proven beneficial in settling family, land, and civil disagreements, its use in criminal cases raises serious concerns about due process, fairness, and the rule of law.
Why ADR Is Not a Substitute for Criminal Justice
ADR processes typically prioritize speed, confidentiality, and mutually agreeable settlements. In criminal matters, however, the state bears a paramount duty to ensure accountability, protect victims, and uphold constitutional rights. Justice Mensah-Homiah noted that criminal proceedings require formal procedures—charges, evidence, cross-examinations, and the possibility of appeal—that ADR cannot adequately replicate. Allowing chiefs to adjudicate crimes risks inconsistency with statutory penalties and could erode public trust in the justice system.
Experts say the risk also extends to potential biases and power dynamics. Traditional authorities, while integral to conflict resolution in many communities, may lack the resources or impartial oversight necessary to balance the scales when serious crimes are at stake. The judge’s warning aims to preserve the integrity of criminal justice while preserving ADR’s value in appropriate contexts.
The Distinct Roles of ADR and the Formal Court System
ADR is most effective for civil disputes, where parties seek amicable settlements, restitution, or ongoing relationships. In such scenarios, ADR can reduce court backlogs, cut costs, and provide culturally resonant outcomes. The formal court system, by contrast, is designed to interpret and apply the law with procedural safeguards that protect suspects’ rights, ensure evidence credibility, and allow appellate review.
The Asogli State, with its rich traditions and governance structures, often relies on chiefs and community elders to address disputes. The judiciary recognizes these customary practices but stresses that criminal matters must pass through the appropriate legal channels. The aim is not to diminish cultural authority but to ensure that criminal accountability remains robust and consistent with national laws.
Practical Implications for Communities
Residents should expect continued use of ADR for non-criminal issues such as land tenure, inheritance, and family disputes, where settlement by consensus aligns with local norms. When grievances escalate into alleged criminal conduct, however, the formal system must take precedence. Police investigations, lawful arraignments, and court proceedings provide a standardized framework for proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and for upholding defendants’ rights.
In this context, community leaders are encouraged to act as facilitators for reconciliation and restorative justice within lawful boundaries. They can play a supportive role by guiding individuals to appropriate avenues for dispute resolution, including mediation services that do not involve criminal adjudication, while ensuring that victims’ needs and societal safety remain at the forefront.
What This Means Going Forward
The caution from Justice Mensah-Homiah signals a call for clear guidelines and perhaps ongoing training for chiefs and ADR practitioners. It also invites stakeholders to collaborate on a framework that preserves beneficial ADR practices while maintaining rigorous protections for those accused of crimes. As global and local legal landscapes evolve, such dialogues are crucial to sustaining public confidence in justice delivery.
In summary, while ADR remains a powerful tool for peaceful settlements, criminal cases in Asogli State must be steered through the formal justice system to ensure due process, accountability, and equal protection under the law.
