The Ghanaian arbitration community seized the opportunity to present its recently enacted Alternative Dispute Resolution Act (Act 798 of 2010), which repealed the Arbitration Act 1961. In contrast to the previous enactment, this new legislation provides for the settlement of disputes by mediation and customary arbitration, in addition to regular arbitration processes.

A thorough review of the Act ensued. Unlike many other countries which have enacted the UNCITRAL Model Law (with or without modifications) as their local law, Ghana has looked to the English Arbitration Act 1996 (1996 Act) instead for guidance in drafting its arbitration legislation. As with the 1996 Act, party autonomy is a key feature of the new legislation, with the majority of the arbitral tribunal's powers being exercisable only if the parties do not agree otherwise.

Practical guidance on conducting an arbitration in Ghana, along with some cultural issues, were also presented to the meeting.

On the second day, judicial intervention and the role of the courts in Ghana was examined. Perhaps in an effort to indicate support for arbitration, the new legislation provides greater opportunities for court intervention when compared to most Model Law-based arbitration laws. If a court before which a matter is pending takes the view that the matter can be better resolved by arbitration, it can refer the matter to arbitration if the parties provide written consent - even if there is no arbitration agreement between the parties. A court can also, of its own volition, stay proceedings and refer the parties to arbitration once an arbitration agreement is found to exist between the parties. Parties can also:

In an effort to further promote Ghana as an arbitration friendly venue, section 114 of the Act establishes the Alternative Dispute Resolution Centre (ADR Centre). The ADR Centre's functions include maintaining a register of arbitrators and mediators, providing guidelines on fees for arbitrators, mediators and customary arbitrators and if required reviewing and advising on changes to the arbitration and mediation rules. Section 125 also creates the Alternative Dispute Resolution Fund to be used to educate the public on ADR principles and to fund research.

The new ADR Centre sparked the most lively debate of the day as, although section 116 asserts the independence of the Centre, its governing board is appointed by the President of Ghana and the composition of its membership is to represent various interest groups (for example, the Chamber of Commerce). Their salaries and allowances are determined by the Ministry of Finance, while the President may unilaterally revoke the appointment of any member. Sections 129 and 130 also empower the President to appoint the Executive Secretary of the Centre as well as other staff. On the advice of the board, the Minister for Justice may make regulations by legislative instrument on various matters to give effect to the provisions of the Act.

While government support for the development of arbitration is commendable, this direct involvement by the government detracts from the arbitration friendly position that the country is trying to promote. Local practitioners (who indicated that they had not been consulted when the Act was being drafted) concluded that the extent of government intervention was counter-productive and not in the interest of the growth of arbitration in the country. Under the auspices of the Ghana Arbitration Centre, practitioners indicated their intention to propose a drastic review of the Act, in order to strictly delimit the supervisory relationship of the government over the ADR Centre.