JUDGMENT OF ACQUAH J.
[p.523]
This appeal deals with the offence of disrespect to a chief, contrary to section 53(a) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370). The Act only creates the offence but does not define what language or conduct constitutes disrespect or insult to a chief. My researches also had not revealed any reported decision on this section. Hence, counsel for the appellant had appealed for some guidance to the lower courts on what is involved in this offence and what the prosecution are to prove in order to sustain this charge.
The appellant was charged under the said section 53(a) of Act 370, and the particulars of his offence read:
"Yaw Debrah alias Atikpo; mason: For that you on 13 July 1990 at Kadjebi in the Volta magisterial district and within the jurisdiction of this court did insult the chief of Kadjebi, Nana Ogyeabour Akopim Finam II by way of conduct."
In proof of their case the prosecution called three witnesses, including the police investigator. Strangely enough, the person who is named in the charge sheet as having been insulted was never called to testify. And the facts as narrated by the police prosecutor show that the complainant is not the person alleged to have been insulted, but the first prosecution witness who claims to be the linguist of the person named in the charge sheet.
Be that as it may, the evidence of the first prosecution witness is that in July 1990 a complaint was made to him, in his capacity as the linguist to Nana Ogyeabour Akopim Finam II, by one Kodwo Sekyere that the appellant herein was found in the early hours of the morning collecting stone particles in front of the palace. He said such conduct was against custom and so he reported the incident to the said Nana Finam II. Following this complaint, an arbitration headed by this same Nana Finam II was held to afford the appellant an opportunity to explain his conduct. The appellant was found liable and ordered to pay four bottles schnapps, one live sheep and a pot of palm wine. But the appellant, without speaking through the linguist nor the odawuro, announced that he would not pay the fine. This, according to the first prosecution witness, was equally against custom. Thereafter the appellant, without permission, left the arbitrators - a conduct which is also against custom. And considering the appellant's conduct to be disrespectful to the chief and traditional authority, he reported same to the police.
Under cross-examination, the first prosecut
