The role of television in resolving private disputes has sparked debate in Ghana, with concerns about media personalities adjudicating cases without proper legal training or authority. According to the Daily Guide, columnist Francis Owusu Addae argues that while media platforms can provide accessible opportunities for reconciliation, they must operate within established legal boundaries. The principles of natural justice, including audi alteram partem and nemo judex in causa sua, are fundamental to any process claiming to constitute a legally recognised arbitration.
The Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798), and the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992, provide a framework for customary arbitration and mediation. Section 93 of Act 798 reinforces the importance of fairness and impartiality in adjudication. However, media programmes that allow one party to make allegations against another without hearing the other side or permit panel members to pronounce judgment on disputed facts risk undermining these principles. The refusal of an individual to participate cannot, by itself, establish liability or constitute proof of wrongdoing.
Publicly accusing individuals of misconduct without adequate justification may expose those responsible for the publication to civil defamation claims. Article 18(2) of the Constitution protects the privacy of individuals, subject to its constitutional qualifications. Family disagreements, marital difficulties, financial matters, and other personal circumstances may involve information that individuals would ordinarily wish to keep private. The desire to resolve a disagreement should not automatically be interpreted as consent to unrestricted public disclosure of sensitive personal information.
A critical distinction concerns criminal allegations, which section 89(2) of Act 798 expressly excludes from customary arbitration. Allegations involving theft, assault, fraud, and other criminal offences should not be treated as matters that a television panel can finally determine. Media programmes may discuss the social implications of such allegations, but the investigation and determination of criminal responsibility belong to the institutions legally authorised to perform those functions.
Despite these concerns, media platforms like Oyerepa Afutuo provide a valuable service in facilitating reconciliation, particularly in family and community disputes. The formal justice system can be expensive, intimidating, and time-consuming, making media platforms an attractive alternative. However, media organisations must obtain the informed consent of participants, distinguish clearly between mediation and adjudication, respect confidentiality where appropriate, and avoid presenting their conclusions as legally binding judgments.
To ensure that media dispute resolution operates within established legal boundaries, presenters who regularly undertake mediation-like functions should receive appropriate training in impartiality, natural justice, and dispute-resolution principles. Where disputes involve criminal allegations, complex property rights, or matters already pending before a court, appropriate referral mechanisms should be encouraged. The media should complement the administration of justice rather than create an alternative institution claiming authority over it.
Ultimately, the question is not whether media personalities should be permitted to help Ghanaians resolve their disagreements but the source and extent of the authority under which that assistance is provided. The government may consider regulating such programmes to ensure that persons who sit on adjudicatory panels are well-trained in the law. Ghana must continue to encourage accessible and innovative forms of dispute resolution while protecting the constitutional foundations of justice, individual rights, and the rule of law.
Key points
- Media personalities in Ghana must operate within established legal boundaries when adjudicating private disputes on television.
- The principles of natural justice, including fairness and impartiality, are fundamental to any process claiming to constitute a legally recognised arbitration.
- The government may consider regulating media programmes that facilitate dispute resolution to ensure that presenters are well-trained in the law.
