REPUBLIC v. CHIEFTAINCY COMMITTEE ON WIAMOASEHENE STOOL AFFAIRS; EX PARTE OPPONG KWAME AND ANOTHER

JUDGMENT OF HAYFRON-BENJAMIN J.

This is a hotly contested application for an order of certiorari in respect of certain steps taken by various bodies in the proceedings concerning the destoolment of Nana Pim Owusu Ansah, one-time Wiamoasehene, in the Agona traditional Area, Ashanti. The bodies concerned are the Agona Traditional Council, the Chieftaincy Committee presided over by Mr. Justice Siriboe, the Chieftaincy Secretariat and the National Liberation Council. The applicants are Nana Oppong Kwame, who claims to be the Wiamoasehene, and Obaapanin Adjoa Amponsah, Queenmother of Wiamoase. The respondents are the Committee on Wiamoase stool affairs, Chieftaincy Secretariat, the Attorney-General and Nana Pim Owusu Ansah in respect of whose destoolment these protracted proceedings originated.

[p.326]

The facts of this case can be found in the numerous affidavits and statements filed in support of this application. In May 1968, Obaapanin Adjoa Amponsah lodged a complaint against Okyiame Panin of Wiamoase at the Agona (Ashanti) Traditional Council. The council met to hear and determine the subject-matter of the complaint in accordance with the provisions of section 15 of the Chieftaincy Act, 1961 (Act 81). On 22 July 1968, Nana Pim Owusu Ansah was declared destooled as Wiamoasehene by the council. We are not directly concerned with the proceedings before the Agona Traditional Council and with the question whether it was mandatory that charges should have been preferred directly against him. However, it seems to me that the proceedings contemplated under the Chieftaincy Act and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder contemplate disciplinary proceedings against a chief and not a trial eventuating in punishment. Moreover in traditional courts and tribunals, it is the real issue that matters, and not technical rules relating to parties and procedure. The chief, i.e. the third respondent, appealed in accordance with the provisions of section 48 (1) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1961 (Act 81). This subsection provides as amended by the Chieftaincy (Amendment) Act, 1964 (Act 243), that:

"48. (1) Any party to a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy who is dissatisfied with the decision of a Traditional Council thereon may, with the leave of the Minister, appeal against the decision by initiating proceedings before a Committee under section 35 of this Act within two months after the giving of the decision, or such extended period as the Minister may allow."

The app