REPUBLIC v. NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS, KUMASI AND ANOTHER; EX PARTE KUSI-APEA

JUDGMENT OF TAYLOR J.S.C.

The circumstances that have led to the appeal and cross-appeals before this court from a decision of the High Court, Kumasi need to be stated clearly in order to put in their proper perspective the legal issues that call for a decision in this chieftaincy case. There were a number of controversial claims put forward in the affidavits of the parties in this case in which Nana Kusi Apea, the appellant, as an applicant in the High Court, prayed for a writ of mandamus to compel the National House of Chiefs, the first respondents herein, to enter his name in the national register of chiefs as the Omanhene and paramount chief of the Wenchi Traditional Area. The main facts, however, which are relevant in these proceedings were unchallenged and are really simple.

The appellant was apparently removed in 1958 as Omanhene of the Wenchi Traditional Area and the second respondent, Nana Abrefa Bediatuo VI, was installed as Omanhene in his place. It is not necessary in these proceedings to make any pronouncements as to whether his removal and the installation of the second respondent were in accordance with the customary law governing the destoolment and enstoolment of the incumbent of the Wenchi paramountcy.

In 1966, however, following the revolutionary events which overthrew the Government of the First Republic, the appellant was reinstated by statute, i.e. the Chieftaincy (Amendment) Decree, 1966 (N.L.C.D. 112).

It is of some importance to note exactly the state of the law on 5 December 1966 when N.L.C.D. 112 became law as well as the precise significance of the statutory chief so created. Section 1 of the Chieftaincy Act, 1961 (Act 81) defines in very clear terms who is a chief under the law as it existed in 1966 as follows:

“1. (1) A Chief is an individual who—

(a) has been nominated, elected and installed as a Chief in accordance with customary law, and

(b) is recognised as a Chief by the Minister responsible for Local Government (in this Act referred to as the “Minister”).

[p.95]

(2) The Minister may by executive instrument at any time withdraw recognition from a Chief if—

(a) the Chief has been destooled and his appeal against the destoolment has been dismissed or the period allowed for appealing has elapsed without an appeal having been brought, or

(b) the Minister considers it to be in the public interest to to withdraw recognition."

The provision of N.L.C.D. 112 under which the appellant regained his position as the para