REPUBLIC v. OMANHENE OF AHANTA TRADITIONAL AREA & OTHERS; EX PARTE KORKOR & OTHERS

JUDGMENT OF TWUMASI J.

Some time in December 1982 the stool of Princess Town, subordinate to the Paramount Stool of Busua, fell vacant and it became necessary for the stool family to nominate a candidate to fill the vacancy. The second respondent nominated the third respondent and confined him for the purpose of outdooring him and installing him as the new chief. The applicants who claim to be the kingmakers, filed a petition before the Ahanta Traditional Council claiming that the third respondent's nomination and confinement as the prospective chief of Princess Town infringed customary procedure in that the accredited kingmakers had not been consulted. While the action was pending before the judicial committee of the traditional council, the first respondent, Omanhene of the Ahanta Traditional Area, and the second respondent and others obtained a police permit to outdoor the third respondent. With the intervention of the Western Regional House of Chiefs, the police withdrew the permit. This was after the applicants had made representations to the regional house of chiefs. Despite the withdrawal of the permit, the first respondent caused the third respondent to be outdoored as a chief. The applicants herein therefore instituted proceedings before this court for an order attaching the respondents for contempt.

In the course of arguments by counsel on both sides, my attention was focused on a preliminary question as to the proper procedure for instituting contempt proceedings against persons whose acts may amount to contempt of a traditional council adjudicating a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Gwira, submitted that the applicants were not the proper persons to institute contempt proceedings before the High Court and that the application was incompetent in view of the provisions of regulation 13 (5) of the Chieftaincy (Proceedings and Functions) (Traditional Councils) Regulations, 1972 (LI 798) which reads:

"13. (5) Where it appears to the judicial committee that any person has committed contempt of the Traditional Council by which that committee was appointed it shall certify that fact to the High Court and the High Court shall after inquiring into the matter take steps for the punishment of the person in question if it is satisfied that he is guilty of contempt, and shall otherwise acquit that person.

[p.1156]

It is clear from regulation 13 (5) of LI 798 that the precondition necessary for the High Court assu