NANA AGYARE BOFOUR IV v. JOSEPH ADADE ANSAH _ 3 ORS.
November 11, 2020
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
- DOTSE, JSC (PRESIDING)
- PWAMANG, JSC
- TORKORNOO (MRS.), JSC
- HONYENUGA, JSC
- PROF. MENSA-BONSU (MRS.), JSC
November 11, 2020
SUPREME COURT
GHANA
CORAM
Try asking the following...
DOTSE, JSC:-
On the 11th day of November 2020, this court by a unanimous decision, dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner/Appellant/Appellant, hereafter referred to as the Petitioner, against the decision of the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs dated 30th day of August 2018 which decision was in favour of the Respondents/Respondents/Respondents hereafter referred to as Respondents.
We now proffer reasons for our decision.
This case no doubt is a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. It therefore takes its roots from the Constitution 1992. But how did this all evolve under the Constitution of 1992?
Report of the Committee of Experts, (Constitution) on Proposals for a Draft Constitution of Ghana which was presented to the P.N.D.C on 31st July 1991 states as follows in paragraphs 339, and 340 of the Report on page 156.
339. “It is worth recalling that Akufo-Addo Report recommended the integration of chieftaincy with the local government system
While the committee would not go so far as to recommend such a radical step, it would nevertheless draw attention to the following:-
Chieftaincy constitutes a major resource that could be officially tapped in reinforcing the modern governmental structure.
Having regard to the high intellectual and professional calibre that the institution of chieftaincy attracts these days, chiefs may now be regarded as a significant source of talent for the modern sector.”
340. “The Committee accordingly recommends that (1) the institution of chieftaincy be guaranteed in the Constitution, as in the previous constitutions,
(2) appropriate steps be taken to ensure that the effective participation of chiefs in the local government system; and
(3) adequate resources be made available from stool land revenues to enable chiefs to play their legitimate role as leaders and catalysts in the development process.” Emphasis
It was therefore pursuant to the above proposals that articles 270 to 277 provisions of the Constitution 1992 which guarantee and regulate the institution of chieftaincy have been provided. For example, article 270 (1) (2) and (3) of the Constitution 1992 provides as follows:-
270. “The Institution of Chieftaincy
(1) The institution of chieftaincy, together with its traditional councils established by customary law and usage, is hereby guaranteed.
(2) Parliament shall have no power to enact any law which
(a) confers on any person or authority the right to accord or withdraw recognitio
AI Generated Summary
Writing for a unanimous panel, V. J. M. Dotse JSC dismissed the further appeal brought by Nana Agyare Bofour IV against the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs. The dispute concerns the Kojo Bofour divisional stool and the Adonten office in the Yeji Traditional Area, with competing claims between Bofour IV and Joseph Adade Ansah. The Petitioner filed in the Brong Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs, arguing natural-justice concerns because the Omanhene, Nana Yaw Kagbrese V, presides over the Yeji Traditional Council. The Regional House declined jurisdiction; the National House affirmed and dismissed the appeal; and the Supreme Court agreed. Applying the 1992 Constitution and the Chieftaincy Act, the Court held that divisional-stool disputes must originate before the relevant Traditional Council’s Judicial Committee. The Court rejected attempts to transform forum by joining the Omanhene and upheld substantial costs, criticizing delays and suggesting procedural reforms to reduce protracted chieftaincy litigation.