Introduction
Arbitration has recently become a preferred method for resolving disputes in commercial and investment transactions globally. Ghana’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Act, 2010 (Act 798) was enacted to provide a comprehensive legal framework for arbitration, mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution.
The Arbitration section of the Act aligns with international arbitration standards, particularly the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, amended 2006) and the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958). However, with the evolving nature of arbitration and the recent UK Arbitration Act 2025 reform, it is crucial to assess whether Ghana’s ADR framework remains competitive and effective.
This article focuses primarily on arbitration, examines the alignment of the Arbitration section of Ghana’s ADR Act with international standards and explores potential reforms to enhance Ghana’s arbitration landscape, making it more efficient, investor-friendly and globally competitive.
This article provides:
1. Key areas where Ghana’s arbitration framework aligns with international best practices.
2. Identified gaps and challenges in the current ADR Act.
3. Policy recommendations and reform proposals to modernize Ghana’s arbitration framework in line with global standards and trends.
4. An assessment of whether Ghana should maintain an integrated ADR Act or enact a standalone Arbitration Act.
1. Alignment with International Standards
(A) Consistency with UNCITRAL Model Law (1985, amended 2006)
• Recognition of Arbitration Agreements – The Ghana ADR Act acknowledges both arbitration clauses and separate arbitration agreements, as mandated by the UNCITRAL Model Law.
• Kompetenz-Kompetenz Principle – Ghana’s Act allows tribunals to rule on their jurisdiction (s.24), aligning with UNCITRAL’s jurisdictional autonomy principles. The arbitral tribunal has the authority to determine its jurisdiction, particularly concerning: (a) the existence, scope, or validity of the arbitration agreement; (b) the existence or validity of the substantive or container agreement; and (c) whether the matters submitted to arbitration align with the arbitration agreement
• Limited Court Intervention – Ghana limits court involvement in arbitration, consistent with the UNCITRAL Model Law’s principle of minimal judicial interference.
(B) Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention, 1958)
Ghana is a signatory to the New York Convention and enforces foreign arbitral awards under Section 59 of the Act.
Grounds for refusal of enforcement are aligned with Article V of the Convention (e.g., lack of proper notice, invalid arbitration agreement, procedural unfairness).
Practical Issue – In some instances, Ghanaian courts have delayed the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards due to procedural hurdles. For example, in the case of Balkan Energy v The Republic of Ghana, PCA Case No. 2010-7, there was a dispute before an arbitration tribunal that was formed after a breach of a power purchase agreement between the Government of Ghana and Balkan Energy Limited regarding the Osagyefo Power Barge in 2007.
Enforcement proceedings extended over two years due to judicial review applications after the tribunal mandated Ghana to pay Balkan Energy damages of $11.75 million, plus interest and costs.
(C) Comparison with UK Arbitration Act 2025 Reforms
It is important to note that Ghana’s Act strengthens confidentiality obligations compared to the UK Act. The UK Act, however, does not explicitly provide the same level of protection. The UK’s arbitration confidentiality requirement remains an implied duty and not statutory.
In Ghana, confidentiality is statutorily provided for under Section 34 of the Act. Except otherwise agreed to by the parties, the Arbitral Tribunal is mandatorily required to make orders concerning the confidentiality of the arbitration proceedings or any other matters in connection with the arbitration and may take measures for protecting trade secrets and confidential information.
The 2025 UK Act gives arbitrators express powers to summarily dismiss unmeritorious claims, while Ghana’s Act lacks such a provision. Ghana may consider, in its Arbitration reformation, the expanded powers of the tribunal.
The duties and powers of an Arbitrator under Section 31 do not give the Arbitrator the power to dismiss unmeritorious claims summarily. It is important to note that this reform to the UK Act aligns the arbitration process with the summary judgment standard used in civil litigation in the UK, specifically Civil Procedure Rule 24.
Both laws expressly state “no real prospect of success” as the main test for summarily dismissing unmeritorious claims or cases. Although Order 14 of C.I 47 of Ghana is similar in substance to that of the UK’s Civil Procedure Rule 24, it does not have the specific words.
In our bid to reform, we could use the same approach and legislate a test that reflects the current regime of summary judgment in Ghana to achieve the same level of uniformity.
Secondly, unless specified otherwise, an arbitration agreement is governed by the law of the underlying contract. The 2025 UK Act clarifies this position: the law relevant to an arbitration agreement is the law expressly agreed upon by the parties, or, in the absence of such an agreement, the law of the arbitration seat.
The 2025 UK Act further adds an exception to this new default rule for investor-state arbitrations when the arbitration agreement stems from a treaty or non-UK legislation.
In Ghana, however, if the parties do not indicate which law should govern the arbitration agreement, the courts are likely to rule that the law of the arbitration seat will apply. This approach was accepted by the High Court of Ghana in the case of Dutch African Trading Co. BV v. West African Mills Co. Ltd. [2022]DLCA 11307.
However, a clear statutory provision can be made to render the law of the seat of the arbitration as the choice of law where there is no explicit agreement by the parties. This is key in settling the debate on the law applicable to arbitration agreements.
The 2025 UK Act also broadens the scope of arbitrator immunity, protecting arbitrators from liability for resignation unless the resignation is deemed unreasonable. However, Ghana’s ADR Act excludes the immunity of liability incurred by arbitrators resulting from resignation under Section 31.
To support certain institutional arbitral rules (such as the 2021 ICC Rules), which provides for the appointment of an emergency arbitrator, the 2025 Act expressly grants emergency arbitrators the same powers as a fully constituted tribunal to (i) enforce peremptory orders, and (ii) permit the parties to apply to the court.
These powers are designed to enhance the enforceability of interim measures ordered by emergency arbitrators. In as much as the Ghana ADR hub rules provide for the appointment of emergency arbitrators during proceedings under their emergency arbitration rules, a broader and wider statutory provision will be a great reform.
The UK Act simplifies the process for setting aside an award, whereas Ghana’s framework remains somewhat complex under Section 58. The UK Courts will not: (i) entertain new grounds of objection or new evidence, unless the applicant can demonstrate that, even with reasonable diligence, the ground or evidence could not have been presented to the tribunal, or (ii) rehear any evidence.
2. Should Ghana Have a Standalone Arbitration Act?
(A) Arguments for Keeping the ADR Act as It Is
• Comprehensive Dispute Resolution Framework – The current Act provides a cohesive system that accommodates arbitration, mediation, and customary dispute resolution under one law, making it accessible and familiar to local practitioners.
• Encourages Mediation & Customary Arbitration – Unlike many jurisdictions, Ghana recognizes traditional and informal dispute resolution mechanisms, which help reduce litigation backlog and promote community-based conflict resolution.
• Flexibility for Users – Businesses and individuals can choose the most suitable dispute resolution method without navigating multiple laws.
(B) Arguments for a Separate Arbitration Act for Ghana
• Alignment with International Practice – Most leading arbitration jurisdictions (e.g., UK, Singapore, Canada) separate arbitration from other ADR methods, making arbitration more robust and investor-friendly.
• Enhancing Arbitration’s International Appeal – A dedicated arbitration law could strengthen Ghana’s position as a preferred seat for international arbitration, providing clearer rules and a stronger enforcement regime.
3. The Thorny Issue of Artificial Intelligence and Arbitration
AI has become an integral part of our personal and professional lives. For a country like Ghana, where arbitration is growing and the adoption of technology is rising, we must stay on top of the trends, especially in the practice of arbitration, if we want to make Ghana an arbitration hub. Leading institutions like Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA), etc, have started incorporating AI tools into e-filing and case management systems to improve efficiency.
While we must embrace the use of AI in arbitration in Ghana, being cognizant of the pitfalls is instructive. There have been instances where AI tools such as ChatGPT have hallucinated and produced non-existent case law when used by lawyers.
For example, in the recent US case of Wadsworth v. Walmart Inc et al (Case No. 2:2023cv00118), lawyers submitted a filing citing non-existent cases generated by an internal AI tool.
The judge in the case fined the lawyers and removed one of them from the case. Similarly, in Zhang v. Chen,2024 BCSC 285, Chong Ke, a Vancouver lawyer submitted a brief in a child custody case to the British Columbia Supreme Court that included non-existent cases generated by ChatGPT. This led to the initiation of an investigation by the Law Society of British Columbia.
It is our considered opinion that Ghana cannot fully take advantage of the benefits of the use of AI in arbitration on the one hand and provide protection against its abuse and address ethical considerations on the other hand if there is no clear regulatory framework or guidelines.
We propose that there should be a detailed AI guidelines for arbitration practitioners and institutions. Particularly, the issues of confidentiality and independence of arbitrators should be addressed in light of the use of AI.
Arbitration thrives on confidentiality and as indicated supra, the ADR Act of Ghana specifically mandates arbitrators to ensure confidentiality in the arbitration process. Using AI tools like ChatGPT to analyse documents, evidence etc, risks exposing confidential information of parties. Regarding the independence of Arbitrators, Arbitrators are required to make decisions independently and are not allowed to delegate any part of their personal mandate to anybody. However, by using AI tools, arbitrators may be deemed to delegate their mandate to the said tools.
In addition, the use of AI tools in the decision-making process by arbitrators may raise ethical issues as to whether the decision was arrived at independently. Detailed guidelines addressing how the use of AI tools by arbitrators should not replace their independent analysis of the facts, the law, and evidence will be a step in the right direction.
Policy Recommendation & Reform Approach
• Option 1: Enact a standalone Arbitration Act while allowing mediation and customary arbitration to remain under the ADR Act. This would mirror international best practices and improve investor confidence.
• Option 2: Create a complementary Arbitration Code that enhances procedural clarity but keeps arbitration within the current ADR Act. This could serve as an interim measure before full separation.
It is vital to add that both options are recommended to further seek to regulate third-party funding and tackle corruption in arbitration and the rise of artificial intelligence in any future reforms.
Conclusion
Ghana’s ADR Act is generally aligned with international standards but lacks some modern arbitration innovations. Learning from some of the UK’s 2025 reforms and global trends, Ghana can make strategic updates to its law and regulatory framework to increase efficiency, attract investment, and reduce court intervention in arbitration.
While Ghana’s integrated ADR framework is commendable, separating arbitration into a standalone Arbitration Act could align with international best practices and strengthen Ghana’s position as a global arbitration hub. A phased approach to reform, starting with amendments to the existing ADR Act and transitioning to a separate law, could be the best path forward.
These reforms will strengthen Ghana’s arbitration landscape, enhance investor confidence, and position the country as a leading dispute resolution hub in Africa.
