Otumfuo Sued Over Kumawu Stool

Otumfuo Osei Tutu II
The Kumawu Ananaya Royal Family has sued Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, the Asantehene and the President of the Asanteman Council, over attempts to enstool Dr. Yaw Sarfo as the Kumawuhene-elect.

Also joined in the suit are the Asanteman Council; Nana Serwaa Amponsaah, Kumawuhemaa; Nana Pepra Kodua II, Krontihene of Kumawu; Nana Akwasi Baffoe, Kumawu Akwamuhene; Baffour Atta Tweneboah, Nifahene, Kumawu and Dr. Yaw Sarfo, the purported Kumawhuhene-elect.

It may be recalled that on 17 October, this year, the Human Rights Division of the High Court in Kumasi dismissed the motion for orders of certiorari and prohibition from applicants – Abusuapanin Kwaku Gyekyei of Odumasi and Opanin Kwabena Kodua, the principal member of the Anananyaadiana Royal Family of Kumawu – challenging the respondents' attempt to install Dr. Sarfo as the new Omanhene of the Kumawu Traditional Area.

Consequently, the applicants appealed against the ruling at the Court of Appeal in Kumasi.

But lawyers for the applicants insisted the respondents were bent on installing Dr. Sarfo ahead of the hearing and determination of the appeal.

The lawyers, in an ex-parte motion dated October 28, 2014 said, 'On October 2014, the applicants/appellants filed a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain jointly and severally the Kumawuhemaa and the candidate for installation, their servants, agents, privies whomsoever or otherwise howsoever from taking part in any installation concerning the Kumawu Stool pending the hearing and determination of the appeal.'

It further alleged that 'The 3 rd Respondent, Kumawuhemaa, has now fixed Thursday 30 th October [today], for the installation of the 7 th respondent as the new Kumawuhene.'

According to the motion filed by W.A.N Adumua-Bossman, 'The 3 rd Respondent or whoever else is organizing the ceremony Thursday 30 th October, 2014 [today], is ignoring the pending motion which is to be heard on 10 th November, 2014 and failing to comply with section 1 of the Public Order Act, 1994 (Act 491).'

Lawyers for the applicants further argued that the action is a serious criminal and civil contempt of court to pre-empt the appeal and go on to do the very thing which the motion for injunction is intending to prevent.

Email: [email protected]
By Jeffrey De-Graft Johnson