Those who have been claiming the right of the inhabitants of the Volta Region outside the area of the proposed Oti Region to participate in the referendum to determine the creation of Oti Region have raised serious questions relating to the fundamental right of freedom of association which must be examined.

To concede this right is to give the inhabitants concerned the right of veto which would be a destructive assault on the fundamental human right of freedom of association which is enshrined in our constitution. If I want to leave the NDC can the other members say no because it would affect their fortunes? Is a person obliged to stay in a relationship with another in a
group, in marriage or generally in friendship because to break it would hurt the interest of the other?

In the first place, it is important to remember that the creation of the Volta Region was not of the volition of its inhabitants. It was the result of a British colonial fiat in 1955 in creating the Trans-Volta Togoland Council followed by an Act of Parliament of the Nkrumah regime in 1959 which rechristened it as the Volta Region; the northern part of British Togoland remaining a part of the Northern Territories. Until then, Anlo, Tongu, Peki and others were part of the Gold Coast Colony. Was their consent sought before they were combined with part of the Trust Territory of British Togoland to form the Volta Region? Was the consent of the inhabitants of
the Gold Coast Colony sought in hacking away these tribes from the Colony? Was the consent of the inhabitants of British Togoland sought in giving them new friends? Why should anyone’s consent be sought now in dismantling what they did not consent to create in the first place?
Such a right could only be conceded if created by the constitution or some other law, which is not the case here, judging by the clear and specific provisions of Article 5 of the constitution.

Freedom of association embodies freedom to dissociate. Article 5 of the constitution grants a right to citizens to ask for the creation of a new region or the alteration of the boundaries of an existing region even if that involves the creation of a new region. If a petition to that effect triggers off a referendum in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, exclusive power is given to a Commission of Enquiry appointed to probe the popularity of the request to recommend to the President the issues to be determined by the referendum, and “the places where the referendum should be held” (Article 5(4)). Does the constitution provide for the undermining of this right by giving a veto to those who are not within the area of a proposed region to oppose its creation? That is the question. In desperation, the proponents of the existence of this right have founded it on the constitutional requirement that the exercise of discretion by the Commission of Enquiry to determine which areas should be involved in a
referendum should be fair and candid and not be arbitrary, capricious or biased. This is disingenuous in the face of the clear provisions of the constitution allowing the right of a part of a region to dissociate from the rest. The same constitution cannot be so interpreted as to undermine this right by giving a veto to those opposed to the creation of the new region and who fall outside the area involved. To extrapolating an abstract principle from the exercise of a discretionary power, which cannot even be anchored on past experience because it does not exist, to contradict specific provisions of the law defies logic and the principles of interpretation of the law. Historically, it is only when the future of British Togoland was being determined that there was consultation of the inhabitants by way of a plebiscite in 1956, and that was a
requirement of the provisions of Chapter XII of the United Nations Charter.

The confusion over the debate in the creation of Oti Region has been worse confounded by accusations of a land grab as though the lands of Oti Region belong to others other than the inhabitants. It is enough to point out that the creation of Oti Region will be without prejudice to
the property rights of anybody or body of persons.

The yearning of a people for independence cannot be suppressed forever. The furore over Oti Region rather justifies the yearning of the inhabitants for separation. However, apart from the administrative separation that will result thereby there is no reason why economic, political and social intercourse should not continue between the peoples of Oti Region and those of the rest of the Volta Region as they exist now between the peoples of the Volta Region and other regions of Ghana, as well as with the world at large. The beating of war drums over this matter is quite unfortunate and uncalled for.