Weird Proposal

A proposal to give chiefs the power to summon people to their courts was tabled recently. It does not sound novel since such authority has always been in place anyway.

Recognised chiefs have been invested with such powers, even though these are limited in scope. Such chiefs cannot exact punishments such as inflicting bodily penalization. What they can do and have always done is demanding the provision of items such as livestock or sometimes some forms of community service. This is the extent to which they can go and it makes sense indeed.

What is new is the proposal to criminalize the failure to heed to such summons and therefore exacting monetary or custodial punishment for defaulters.

It is interesting especially when viewed against the backdrop of the recent flogging of a head teacher by a chief in the Northern Region and the order of banishment from Tamale by the Dakpema in Tamale to the family of a man suspected to have filmed the nudity of some ladies in the Northern Regional capital.

Such chiefs have forgotten the fact that their authorities have largely been watered down by the advent of the colonisation powers which were inherited by the indigenous people who assumed the throttles of state at independence.

As we compose this editorial the chief who flogged the head teacher has been dragged to court to face criminal charges related to his action – something we must congratulate the police on wading into.

We are in no way seeking to undermine the authority of traditional authority. That is not the case: we are for the protection of our heritage which the traditional institution epitomizes ably.

What we are seeking to do by this commentary is uphold the human rights of citizens and to ensure that the rule of law – the cornerstone of our civilization – is upheld without inhibition whatsoever.

There is no denying the fact that the traditional institution is one area which has been riddled with myriad drawbacks. These have worryingly depreciated the authority of our traditional rulers. How do we determine which chiefs should wield the authority to summon their subjects to their courts and under what conditions should these be applied?

Some of our chiefs have already lost the moral authority to be invested with such authorities. Any such proposal should be mindful about suggestions which when activated can be detrimental to the rule of law.

The fact is that chiefs who have lost the deference to summon their subordinates would mess such powers when invested in them. Let us avoid such extension of state powers to our chiefs lest we regret it in the long run.