This brings the discussion to the principle of natural justice. Although the constitutional requirements governing administrative bodies under Article 23 do not automatically apply to every privately operated television programme, the principles of fairness remain fundamental to any process claiming to constitute a legally recognised arbitration.
The two familiar principles are audi alteram partem, which requires that the other side be heard, and nemo judex in causa sua, which requires impartiality in adjudication. Their importance in customary arbitration is reinforced by section 93 of Act 798.
A programme that allows one party to make allegations against another, reaches conclusions without hearing the other side or permits panel members to pronounce judgment on disputed facts risks undermining these principles. The refusal of an individual to participate cannot, by itself, establish liability or constitute proof of wrongdoing.
There is also the question of reputational harm. Publicly accusing individuals of theft, fraud, adultery, dishonesty or other misconduct without adequate justification may expose those responsible for the publication to civil defamation claims. The fact that a statement is made during a popular social programme does not automatically protect its publisher from legal consequences.
Similarly, 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.
Another important distinction concerns criminal allegations. Section 89(2) of Act 798 expressly excludes criminal matters from customary arbitration, subject to the statutory qualification. Accordingly, 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.
It would nevertheless be unfair to overlook the social value of programmes such as Oyerepa Afutuo. For many individuals, the formal justice system can be expensive, intimidating and time-consuming. Media platforms may provide an accessible opportunity for reconciliation, particularly in family and community disputes where restoring relationships is often more important to the parties than obtaining a formal judgment.
The challenge, therefore, is not necessarily to prohibit such programmes but to establish a clearer understanding of their legal boundaries. Media organisations that facilitate dispute resolution should 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. Presenters who regularly undertake mediation-like functions should also 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 Auntie Naa or any other media personality should be permitted to help Ghanaians resolve their disagreements. The more important question is the source and extent of the authority under which that assistance is provided. Ghanaian law permits voluntary mediation and recognises customary arbitration, but these processes have identifiable legal requirements.
A television programme does not become a court simply because it has an audience, a panel and a presenter who presides over disputes. Maybe the government upon consideration can consider regulating such programs mainly in ensuring that persons who sit on such adjudicatory panels are very well trained in the law with respect to the extend to which they can carry on their adjudication.
The courtroom is an institution of law, not merely a platform with a presiding personality. Ghana must therefore continue to encourage accessible and innovative forms of dispute resolution while ensuring that the constitutional foundations of justice, individual rights and the rule of law remain protected.
REFERENCES AND LEGAL MATERIALS
Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992.
Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798).
Badu II v Caesar [1959] GLR 410.
Dzasimatu v Dokosi (1993–94) 1 GLR 463.
National Media Commission’s November 2023 determination concerning Oyerepa FM/TV.
By Francis Owusu Addae