Need for a Commission of Inquiry into Wenchi Stool Affairs.

« Prev

Comments (0)

Listen to Article

I have read the opinions expressed on the website (Aug. 31, 06) and I feel compelled as a person who has studied the political history of Ghana as it relates to the institution of chieftaincy and constitutional (customary) law. I write this as an analyst with no relation to or support for any of the two royal families of Wenchi. I am therefore presenting an objective account of the situation.

The Busias/ Sofoase Yefre Royal family are also citizens of the Sovereign Republic of Ghana, and since the President has taken an oath to defend all Ghanaians without fear or favour, there are some serious issues and gross injustices meted to the Sofoase Royal Family that President Kuffour need to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to advise him on. In essence, what the Busias are petitioning for is very much in accordance with the principles of rule of law and constitutionalism, the cornerstones upon which the Danquah –Busia traditions are erected and it is a tradition that Kuffour prides himself to be part of.

It is no exaggeration to state that an instance in contemporary Ghanaian history where the rule of law is undermined and subverted is the case of Wenchi Stool Affairs. The facts and evidence will disclose how the said Wenchi Stool Affairs presents one of the most serious challenges to the other wise dignified institution of Chieftaincy, striking at the heart of the liberal democratic order. Principles of equity, fairness, requisites of constitutionalism, have been manifestly undermined by political chicanery cloaked as legality by past authoritarian regimes in Ghana aimed specifically at depriving the Sofoase House of their bona fide Stool; their only crime being that Professor Busia who is a politician hails from that royal family.

It is common knowledge that Nana Kusi Appea, as a junior brother of Professor Busia, was one of the Amanhene, who together with about 200 notable ones such as Nana Wiafe Akenten of Offinso, Osagyefo Nana Ofori Atta, of Kyebi, and many more mostly from Ashanti region, were arbitrarily destooled by President Kwame Nkrumah,in the late 1950s just after independence. In the case of Nana Kusi Appea, there was a cabinet decision to detain him together with his brother B.K. Busia, who was then serving detention under the now criticised Preventive Detention Act( PDA). As a result Nana Kusi Appea had to seek political asylum in Nigeria.

After several attempts by the CPP to remove Nana Kusi Appea in the 1950s did not work because of the support he was receiving from the King makers and chiefs, the CPP used a political rally to install Bediatuo as the Wenchihene. At this rally, on a football pitch in Wenchi on 28 th September 1958 which C. E Donkor, the CPP candidate for the constituency, presided over, Bediatuo was given a stick to swear an oath and at that time he was declared the Wenchihene. C.E Donkor , a cousin of the Busia's, comes from a very important family of Chief linguists (akyeamehene)of the Wenchi traditional area..

At this time Nana Kusi Appea was presiding over state council meeting at the palace. During the Bediatuo swearing in, there was not a single Kingmaker there: Krontihene Nana Damoa, was not there nor was Akwamuhene, nor Gyasehene, nor Akyeamehene, nor Abakomahene,; and certainly not Nana Frema Tartuo II, the Queenmother. There were 4 sub chiefs who were registered members of the CPP party there but they had been destooled and gazetted as such as far back as 1952. So this act had no locus standi as we say in law. The state sword used in such swearing in was in the custody of Nana Kusi Appea. So any reader should judge for himself how Nana Kusi Apea could have been destooled for Bediatuo to have become a Wenchihene. In December 1958 realizing that Nana Kusi Appea was still accorded the respect of Omanhene, what Nkrumah did was to give him 24 hours to vacate the stool through the then famous one o'clock news.

Hence naturally in 1966 on assumption of office by the NLC decree, NLCD 112, was passed which aimed at restoring chieftaincy back to its dignified status after years of undue interference and politicization by the CPP. In sum, it reverted the institution of chieftaincy to status quo ante in which about 200 chiefs were given back their stools, including Nana Kusi Appea.

Now let us enter the Colonel Achampong military regime that overthrew the Busia government in 1972. A year after Acheampong came to power he withdrew recognition from Nana Kusi Appea, as the legitimate Omanhene of Wenchi, amid serious and threatening protest within the Wenchi traditional area. Colonel Achampong was impelled to refer the matter to the National House of Chiefs. Consequently a Committee of Inquiry was set up to advise it on constitutional matters relating to Wenchi Paramount Stool.

It is worthy of note that the National House Chiefs, in light of evidentiary factors factors, found for Nana Kusi Appea. But observe the dirty tricks of Achampong who was bent on overthrowing Busia's brother as well. The Committee which was supposed to be independent had no legal links with the Acheampong government, somehow did not submit its findings to the National House of chiefs, the appointing body, for adoption or rejection of its findings but did submit its report to the Achampong government and this led to the promulgation of SMCD 64. When the National House of Chiefs found out about the report, it studied it and rejected it and drew the attention of the Achampong government that its actions were inconsistent with established Akan customary law and practices on Chieftaincy matters. As to be expected it was not in the interest of the Achampong government to heed the advice of the National House of Chiefs, and it proceeded to pass the decree SMCD 64. So the National House of chiefs never found in favour of Bediatuo, as some ignorant commentators are leading readers to believe.

As if that was not enough, Colonel Achampong, proceeded to pass yet another decree to remove Nana Afia Frema Tartuo II from the Queen mothers' Stool and ordered the seizure of stool property thereof, when clearly that was not the subject of the discredited Committee of Inquiry. Nana Frema's crime is also that Kofi Busia is her brother. There is no other justifiable reason why she was removed.

Colonel Achampong did not stop there. As the highest mark of his hatred for the Busia family he went on to pass yet another decree, SMCD 68, which made it an offence for any person to do anything which amounts to treating Nana Kusi Appea as the Omanhene of Wenchi. The punishment of such "offence" was a summary conviction with a fine and/or two years imprisonment. This decree has been treated with utmost contempt it deserves by the people of Wenchi as they continue to accord and treat Nananom Kusi Appea and Frema Tartuo, as thei chief and Queen mother, respectively. Go to Wenchi even in the days of the reign of so called Bediatuo and ask to see Wenchihene, you are likely to be taken to Nana Kusi or at worst you will be asked which of them.

Readers should know that the position of the National House of Chiefs was affirmed when in 1983, Nana Abrefa Mbore Bediatuo, sought a writ of certiorari to quash the National House of Chiefs reaction report of 1976. The House was joined in the suit as a respondent, and the action was dismissed with cost thereby affirming the view that the report is what espouses the National House Chiefs view on Wenchi Stool Affairs because the House defended it in the action and by dismissal of the case the court was attesting to the validity of the House's report that Nana Kusi Appea is the rightful Omanhene of Wenchi. In yet another case brought by Nana Kusi Appea for a mandamus to enter his name into the registrar as the Omanhene of Wenchi, based on an AFRC decree, which sought to give effect to the said National House Chiefs report. Both the court of first instance and Court of Appeal in 1986 did not raise any issue as to the authenticity of the report; but they, however, could not grant the mandamus on grounds of sheer technicality that the decree bore no date of commencement.

What is more, as recently as 2005, the National Reconciliation Commission (NRC) that was set up to investigate cases of past human rights violations in its report confirmed the position of the National House of Chiefs by stating clearly and in no ambiguous terms that the removal of Nana Kusi Appea 1, and Nana Frema Tartuo II, as Omanhene and Queen mother respectively constituted a human rights violation against them. The report went further to criticise the Brong Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs for not protesting against the removal of Nana Kusi Appea in 1975 by the Achampong government. The report elsewhere used strong words to describe as uncivilized and contrary to tenets of rule of law, the laws passed against an individual person, it prayed on the government to remove such laws from the statute books, and such laws will include SMCD 64.

These are the facts and one would be hard put to it to challenge these facts of the Wenchi Chieftaincy dispute as outlined above. And if these are the facts then there are issues that the government needs to look into, including the findings of the National Reconciliation Commission as relates to this matter. This commission is made up of respectable Ghanaians from all walks of life, including judges, lawyers, academics, chiefs, church leaders, Moslem leaders, former government officials and senior military leaders. Could they all be wrong that Nana Kusi Appea is the rightful Wenchihene?

What is not fair to the Busias is that Kufffour knows about these injustices meted out to the Busias, as reported to him by the NRC. President Kuffour has the constitutional authority to appoint a Commission of Inquiry to advise him on these matters, and such an action cannot be misconstrued by any well-meaning person to mean interference in chieftaincy matters or acting unconstitutionally.

This concludes my take on this chieftaincy issue and I caution here that if this case is not resolved soon, it could blow out into a full-fledged war in the Wenchi Traditional area.