THE REPUBLIC v. NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS & ORS EX PARTE: AHANTA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL OSAHENE KATAKYI BUSUMAKURA III

AMEGATCHER, JSC:-

This appeal is about the elevation of a divisional stool to the status of paramountcy in the Western Region of the Republic of Ghana. The distinguished retired justice of the Supreme Court of Ghana and jurist Justice Stephen Alan Brobbey in his book: The Law of Chieftaincy in Ghana, 1st edition, 2008 researched into how paramountcy is created and concluded at page 15 as follows:

‘It would appear that the paramount status comes into being by about three methods: The first is by the traditional process of installation; the second is elevation by an overlord and the third is by a legislative instrument elevating the chief below paramount status to the status of a paramount chief’.

Armed with the benefit of this research, we proceed to deal with this appeal on this traditional time-honoured but evolving institution in Ghana. Osahene Katakyi Busumakura III, hereafter called the Interested Party is the Chief of Takoradi. The stool of Takoradi is a divisional stool under the Ahanta Traditional Council, the Appellant in this case. On 16th April 2009, the Interested Party wrote a petition to the President of the National House of Chiefs, the 1st Respondent herein, to restore Takoradiman Divisional Stool to the status of Paramountcy. On receipt of the petition, the 1st Respondent wrote to the Western Regional House of Chiefs, the 2nd Respondent in this appeal, referring the petition to it for its comments and advice since Takoradi falls within the jurisdiction of that regional house. The 2nd Respondent also on receipt of the reference from the1st Respondent set up a committee of enquiry, the 3rd Respondent, to consider the petition and advise it.

The Appellant was not happy with the petition, referred by the 1st Respondent to the 2nd Respondent and the subsequent setting up of the 3rd Respondent. On 11th April 2012, the Appellant brought at application before the High Court, Sekondi for the following reliefs:

i.) A declaration that the 1st Respondent without any reference to it for advice by a person or authority charged with responsibility to deal with any matter relating to or affecting chieftaincy under the 1992 Constitution or by statute; cannot of its own [volition] cause any investigation or enquiry into any matter related to or affecting chieftaincy.

ii.) A declaration that the 1st Respondent’s referral of the Interested Party’s application for elevation from a Divisional stool to a Paramount stool to the 2nd Respondent for its comme