Ghana: The Structure Frowns On Banishment However!

The Supreme Legislation of the Land (Structure) ensures the liberty and delight of rights of its residents. This place is buttressed by Articles 14 and 21 of the 1992 Structure which discuss of safety of non-public liberties and common basic freedom.

GENERAL MISCONCEPTION

The overall impression among the many Ghanaian populace per the interpretation of Article 270 (1-3) is that our Kings and Chiefs are Lords to themselves. Nevertheless, being an establishment it’s regulated by the 1992 Structure and the Chieftaincy Act (759). This assertion is additional mirrored within the well-known case of Republic v Techiman Conventional Council Ex-Parte Tutu (1982-83) GLR 996 at 999 the place Coussey J A then, said that “Chieftaincy, for the reason that British colonial administration, has been ruled by statute and this has continued since independence of Ghana in 1957. Thus, the establishment of Chieftaincy, though it has advanced in accordance with customary legislation, has been subjected to regulation for the reason that creation of British colonialism within the jurisdiction.

BANISHMENT

The structure is kind of express on the above topic and that nobody or establishment has the correct to banish his or its topics. Below this forth Republic in 2007, a well-known chief who can be a lawyer issued a press release banishing a Authorities official from his Conventional space for refusing to make his consultant the chairman of an area Board. Such motion was additionally repeated by one other Paramount chief in one in all our 5 Northern Areas o n h i s topic and his household. These acts acquired extensive condemnation by the Ghanaian public.

Kwasi Addai (Odike) and Kumasi Conventional Council.

In about two weeks in the past, Odike made a categorical assertion on Oyerepa FM that imputed the character of Kumasi Conventional Chiefs of being “King Pins” within the unlawful mining trade, popularly referred to as galamsay.

Based mostly on this, the Conventional Council appearing by means of the Bantamahene or Krontihene of Kumasi banned him from coming into Manhyia Palace. This order has been acquired with blended reactions by cross part of Ghanaians.

I can state emphatically that, the motion by the Kumasi Conventional Council is completely proper and that they haven’t violated any article of the Structure. It should be homed that Manhyia will not be a public place, it’s a non-public one like all non-public residence.

Invitation by Kumasi Conventional Council to Odike to Manhyia

This request by the Conventional Council was unconstitutional, within the sense that Nananom have been re- inventing the wheel of a legislation that has been revoked or repealed. Subsequently, Odike’s refusal to take care of Nananom name was completely proper.

Within the celebrated case of Nana Adjei Ampofo v Lawyer Basic and the President of the Nationwide Home of Chiefs from 2007- 2011, the Supreme Courtroom of 9 judges presided by His Lordship Dr. Date Bah agreed with the Plaintiff that “if the President of the Republic, who maintain govt Authority of the state has no energy to subpoena any citizen of Ghana”, then who else can achieve this.

Therefore, the part 63(d) of the Chieftaincy Act which makes it an offence when “an individual intentionally refuses to honor a name from a chief to attend a problem” has been repealed by the Case Legislation.

The Conventional council by no means coerced or threatened Odike to attend their name, therefore they’ve additionally not breached a n y article of the structure too. The matter dies by itself.

Odike and the Chieftaincy Act of 2008 (759).

Part 63 (c) says “an individual who knowingly makes use of disrespectful or insulting language or insult a chief by phrase or conduct commits an offence and is liable on abstract conviction to a positive of no more than 200 penalty items or to a time period of imprisonment no more than three months or each.

Of the 4 Declarations sought by Nana Adjei Ampofo, just one was granted and the remainder have been refused by the Supreme Courtroom. Therefore, all offences underneath part 63 of the chieftaincy Act maintain good.

So the place can we situate Odike’s motion now. He made a fleeting and blanket assertion attacking the character of Nananom in Kumasi Conventional Council. He by no means talked about anybody’s title in his assault.

However cannot Nananom have the locus to corridor him earlier than the courts of the land primarily based on Act 759 part 63 (c) for redress?

I go away it to the judgment of Ghanaians.

Oyerepa FM and Kumasi Conventional Council.

Oyerepa being a authorized entity and pro-active of their enterprise march, rapidly apologized to the Kumasi Conventional Council by means of the Performing President Nana Boakye Ansah, the Chief of Asokore Mampong and Professor E m m a n u e l Asante, Ex-President of Methodist Church Ghana.

Oyerepa rendered an unqualified apology for making a medium for Odike to spew such uncomfortable phrases in attacking Nananom.

As a part of their amicable settlement and lasting peace, each Events agreed that Oyerepa needs to be off air, while t h e i r apology was being thought of.

Inside a spate of two days, Oyerepa was again within the air and that ends the matter. Nowhere did the Kumasi Conventional Council arrogate to itself the regulatory powers of Nationwide Communication Authority (NCA). Therefore, the place lies these unfairly accusations?

The Forth Property of the Realm

No Ghanaian can undervalue the pivotal position of the media, each print and broadcasting in Ghana’s present dispensation. Nevertheless, there are some few journalists who’ve the penchant of participating in misrepresentation and misreporting of info. That is specific so, when the matter is coming from “sure geographical corners of the nation”. Both persons are intentionally being disingenuous or spicing up points. We do not construct a nation like that.

It’s my strongest conviction, that if Senior AkofoAmpaw had been ceased with the info of those issues which arose in Kumasi, he would not had drawn such conclusions in his interview three days in the past.

The unfinish enterprise of Nationwide Home of Chiefs.

Within the celebrated case of Nana Adjei Ampofo v Anothy Basic and the nationwide home of chiefs, of the 4 Declarations sought, the Supreme Courtroom of Ghana granted just one.

Some Nananom, Togbes, Naabas, Kirous, Nenes, Wuras, Niis and others really feel being jettisoned by this ruling, and that this ruling is a curtailment of their powers.

That is by no means so. It’s the clear place of the legislation which has been clarified.

That, part 63 (d) of the chieftaincy Act was in contravention of Article 2 of 1992 Structure on “consistency compliance”.

The Supreme Courtroom directed our Kings and Chiefs by means of Article 11 (3) and (7) of the 1992Constitution to work assiduously with Parliament in reshaping the part 63 (d) of Act 759. The author is conscious of efforts put in by then chairman of Authorized Committee of Nationwide Home of Chiefs, Daasebre Osei Bonsu of Asante Manpong, the WluguNaa Professor J S Nabila and Nana Tibrukusu of Nsein, then President and vice President to make sure that new powers are crafted in a method that might be acceptable to the individuals of Ghana by means of the structure. It’s a challenge that should be dropped at a fruition.

Conclusion

The Chieftaincy Establishment stays the heartbeat of the nation. It’s the fulcrum if not the pedestal of which the nation relaxation in all our nationwide endeavors or affairs and that each one efforts should be made to help it no matter bumps and challenges.

By Opanin Yaw Baah

The author is a Senior Accomplice

Sterling Partnership and former Member of Parliament. Kumawu