Ghana’s Chief Justice Institutes Specialised High Court to Combat Corruption and Galamsey

In a decisive move to accelerate the resolution of high-stakes, nationally sensitive cases, the Chief Justice of the Republic of Ghana, His Lordship Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, has formally created a new Specialised High Court Division. This landmark judicial restructuring, enacted on February 5, 2026, directly addresses widespread public concern over the protracted pace of justice in matters involving public funds and the catastrophic environmental damage caused by illegal mining, locally known as galamsey. By creating a dedicated judicial pipeline, the judiciary aims to ensure that environmental and financial crimes are met with swifter, more certain legal consequences.

Key Points: The New Specialised Court at a Glance

• Legal Authority: Established under Section 14(3) of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459), granting the Chief Justice power to constitute specialized court divisions.
• Primary Jurisdiction: The court will handle both criminal and civil cases stemming from Auditor-General reports, the Office of the Special Prosecutor Act (2017), the Minerals and Mining Act (2006), the Cybersecurity Act (2020), and the Narcotic Drugs Law.
• Focus Areas: Core mandates include prosecuting corruption and public accountability cases, adjudicating illegal mining (galamsey) and environmental degradation, recovering stolen state assets, and handling organized crime/cybersecurity offenses.
• Operational Efficiency: Concurrently, High Court working hours have been extended to 8:00 AM – 6:30 PM on weekdays under Order 79 of the High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004, to reduce administrative bottlenecks and support the new court’s caseload.
• Objective: To expedite justice, deter economic and environmental crimes, and restore public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to handle complex, high-profile cases.

Background: The Crises of Corruption and Galamsey in Ghana

The Galamsey Epidemic: An Environmental and Economic Emergency

Illegal mining, or galamsey, has evolved from a localized livelihood activity into a national security threat. The practice, often involving foreign nationals and sophisticated syndicates, uses destructive methods like dredging and toxic mercury amalgamation. The consequences are severe: massive deforestation, the pollution of critical watersheds like the Pra, Ankobra, and Birim rivers with heavy metals and sediment, and the degradation of vast tracts of agricultural land. Environmental agencies and water resource experts have consistently warned that this pollution poses an existential danger to Ghana’s water security, jeopardizing drinking water supplies, hydroelectric power generation (e.g., at the Akosombo Dam), and fisheries. The economic cost is equally staggering, encompassing lost royalties, revenue from formal mining, and the long-term expense of environmental remediation.

Systemic Corruption and the Quest for Public Accountability

Parallel to the environmental crisis is the persistent challenge of public sector corruption and financial malfeasance. Reports from the Auditor-General routinely highlight systemic weaknesses, mismanagement, and alleged theft of public funds across various ministries, departments, and agencies (MDAs). The creation of the Office of the Special Prosecutor (OSP) in 2017 was a major institutional step to independently investigate and prosecute these cases. However, the judiciary has faced criticism for delays in adjudicating the complex, document-heavy cases that emerge from such investigations, leading to public perception of impunity. The slow pace of justice has been a central theme in civil society advocacy and public discourse.

The Judiciary’s Response to Public Pressure

The Chief Justice’s directives must be understood against this backdrop of intense public and media scrutiny. There is a palpable demand for the state to demonstrate tangible results in the fight against both galamsey and grand corruption. The judiciary, as the arbiter of these disputes, has been under immense pressure to reform its processes to match the urgency of the executive’s stated objectives in these areas. This restructuring represents a significant attempt to align judicial administration with these national priorities.

Analysis: Scope, Implications, and Potential Challenges

Jurisdictional Breadth and Legal Architecture

The new Specialised High Court Division’s mandate is exceptionally broad, weaving together multiple strands of statutory law:

• Corruption & Public Accountability: It will hear matters arising from Auditor-General reports (which often form the basis for OSP investigations) and cases prosecuted under Act 959. This creates a more direct pipeline from audit finding to courtroom.
• Natural Resources & Galamsey: Jurisdiction covers all litigation under the Minerals and Mining Act, 2006 (Act 703), giving it authority over both regulatory enforcement and criminal prosecution related to illegal mining operations.
• State Asset Recovery: This empowers the court to adjudicate civil suits for the recovery of assets (money, property, investments) where the state has a proprietary interest, a crucial tool for clawing back stolen wealth.
• Organised Crime & Security: The inclusion of the Narcotic Drugs Law and the Cybersecurity Act, 2020 (Act 1038) suggests the court will also handle complex, often cross-border, serious organized crime cases, potentially linking financial crimes to other illicit networks.

This conflation of jurisdictions—combining economic crime, environmental crime, and serious organized crime—is notable. It treats these not as isolated issues but as interconnected facets of state security and economic stability.

Strategic Rationale: Specialization and Efficiency

The core rationale is judicial specialization. By concentrating these complex cases before a select panel of judges, the system aims to:

• Build Expertise: Judges will develop specialized knowledge in forensic accounting, mining law, environmental regulations, and cyber forensics, leading to more informed rulings.
• Reduce Delays: Docket management for these high-profile cases will be isolated from the general civil and criminal dockets, minimizing scheduling conflicts and procedural adjournments.
• Enhance Deterrence: The visible, dedicated forum signals the state’s seriousness, potentially deterring would-be offenders who might have previously counted on judicial delays.
• Streamline Coordination: It facilitates closer operational links between the judiciary, the OSP, the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO), the Minerals Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Potential Challenges and Critical Considerations

While the intent is clear, implementation will face hurdles:

• Resource Allocation: Specialization requires dedicated resources—courtrooms, registrars, IT systems, and security. The success hinges on whether these are adequately provided without starving other divisions of the High Court.
• Judicial Capacity & Independence: The assigned judges must be not only legally astute but also perceived as utterly independent and immune to political or external pressure, especially given the powerful interests involved in galamsey and large-scale corruption.
• Case Backlog Transfer: Will this be a truly new docket, or will existing pending cases from across the country be transferred to this court? If the latter, it risks immediate congestion without addressing root causes of delay elsewhere.
• Definition of “National Interest”: The Chief Justice’s circular mentions matters of “essential national interest.” While the listed categories are clear, the potential for future discretionary expansion warrants scrutiny to prevent mission creep or political weaponization of the court’s docket.
• Complementary Reforms: A specialized court is a procedural fix. Its ultimate effectiveness depends on the quality of investigations and prosecutions presented by the OSP, EOCO, and other agencies. Weak evidence or poor litigation will still lead to acquittals, regardless of judicial speed.

Practical Advice: What This Means for Stakeholders

For Legal Practitioners and Litigants

• Case Strategy: Lawyers handling matters within the court’s scope must immediately factor in the new procedural environment. Expect different case management protocols and a potentially faster pace.
• Filing Procedures: Clarity is needed on where new filings originating from an Auditor-General report or OSP prosecution must be lodged. Practitioners should monitor official communications from the Judicial Service for revised filing rules and registry locations.
• Specialized Knowledge: This development underscores the need for lawyers to develop niche expertise in mining law, asset recovery, and financial crime to effectively represent clients before this bench.

For Civil Society and the Media

• Vigilant Monitoring: This court is a critical transparency and accountability mechanism. CSOs and media must actively monitor its proceedings, reporting on case progress, judicial conduct, and outcomes to ensure it delivers on its promise of expeditious justice.
• Public Education: There is a need to educate the public on the court’s specific mandate to manage expectations and prevent misunderstandings about its jurisdiction (e.g., it is not a court for all environmental cases, only those linked to mining/Act 703).
• Amicus Curiae Briefs: Where appropriate, expert organizations may consider submitting amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs on complex legal or technical issues, such as the environmental science of mercury pollution or the intricacies of tracing stolen state assets offshore.

For Government Agencies

• Prosecutorial Readiness: The OSP, EOCO, and Attorney-General’s department must ensure their case files are meticulously prepared, with clear chains of evidence and legal foundations, to meet the anticipated faster tempo of this court.
• Inter-Agency Coordination: Formalize liaison protocols with the court’s registry and the judges to facilitate the smooth production of evidence, witness availability, and expert testimony.
• Resource Commitment: The executive branch must match its rhetorical support for this court with the necessary budgetary and logistical support for the judiciary to function effectively.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What exactly is “galamsey” and why is it a court priority?

Galamsey is a Ghanaian portmanteau of “gather them and sell,” referring to illegal, small-scale mining operations that often operate without permits, disregard environmental and safety regulations, and use crude, toxic methods. It is a priority because it causes unparalleled environmental destruction—polluting rivers with mercury and cyanide, causing deforestation, and degrading farmland—threatening water security, public health, and sustainable development. It also results in significant loss of revenue to the state from uncollected royalties and taxes.

How is this Specialised Court different from a normal High Court?

It is a dedicated division of the High Court with a subject-matter jurisdiction limited to specific, complex statutes (Act 959, Act 703, Act 1038, etc.). Its judges are designated to handle only these types of cases, fostering expertise. It operates with a mandate for accelerated case management, supported by the concurrent extension of High Court hours. A regular High Court handles the broad spectrum of civil and criminal matters under general jurisdiction.

Can anyone file a case directly in this Specialised Court?

No. Its jurisdiction is triggered by the subject matter of the case. You cannot file an ordinary land dispute or a simple debt claim there. A case must arise from the specific laws listed in the Chief Justice’s directive—for example, a lawsuit to recover state assets stolen through a corrupt contract, or a criminal prosecution for operating an illegal mine under Act 703. The initiating pleading (writ, complaint, or information) must clearly show this nexus.

What does the extension of High Court hours (8 AM – 6:30 PM) mean for the public?

This change aims to increase the court’s operational capacity and accessibility. It allows for more hearing slots, longer sessions for complex trials, and extended hours for filing and registry services. The goal is to reduce the chronic backlog that plagues the system by utilizing time more efficiently. For lawyers and litigants, it provides greater flexibility for scheduling, potentially reducing the need for multiple adjournments due to court congestion.

Will this court use different rules of procedure?

It will apply the existing High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2004 (CI 47) and the Criminal Procedure Code, but with a likely emphasis on active case management techniques to avoid delays. The Chief Justice’s directive specifically empowers the court to manage its docket proactively to ensure expedition. Specific practice directions may be issued by the judges of the division to tailor standard procedures to the needs of complex corruption, asset recovery, and environmental crime litigation.

Is this court temporary or permanent?

The establishment is made under a general statutory power (Section 14(3) of Act 459). Unless the Chief Justice later issues a circular dissolving the division, it is a permanent feature of the Superior Court of Judicature’s structure, similar to other specialized divisions like the