Sibling Rivalry And Its Negative Cascading Effects On The Chieftaincy Institution In Ghana - Episode 2

In the previous episode (episode 1), we examined the Biblical accounts on sibling rivarly and how it led to the deaths of some siblings. For example, with support from his maternal family, Abimelech, the concubinage son of Gideon initiated a chieftaincy dispute and murdered 69 of his brothers within a day.

We equally examined some of the causes of sibling rivalries. The causative factor list is however not exhaustive. We have also come to the conviction that sibling rivalry is deeply inherent in human nature. We consequently cautioned that such rivalyries should be well managed to forestall their negative effects on unborn generations. This is because sibling rivarly arguably goes beyond the generation that started it. As such, many other generations buy into it much later. In fact, one may assert from a geographical perspective that if sibling rivaly was a major river, then there may be many tributaries to it. Sibling rivalry may also be described scientifically as like-poles that repel.

In episode 1, we also discussed kinship or consanguinal tiers and their relevance for traditional societies. In this episode, we will touch on the chieftaincy institution in Ghana and examine the nexus bewtween sibling rivalry and chieftaincy disputes across the country.

Touching on the relevance of kinship, a renowned Ghanaian Anthropologist, Nukunya (1992: 11) submitted with authority, “The kinship system prescribes statuses and roles to people who are in particular relatiohsips.” Suffice to say that the status and the role of a chief in the Ghanaian society emanates from a family or kinship before it is ultimately accepted and duly revered by the entire community or a traditional area. The authority of a chief therefore goes beyond his kinship or family. As such, when a chief joins his ancestors, it becomes a concern for the whole community. The enire community is the bereaved family in this case.

Traditional And Constitutional Relevance of Chieftaincy In Ghana

Both traditionally and constitutionally, chieftaincy is relevant within the social fabric of the Ghanaian nation. Traditionally, chiefs are monarchical leaders. They are born into a family that leads royally. Years before democratic governance started in the Gold Coast, traditional priests and chiefs were the ultimate leaders in society.

Having studied traditional political institutions within Ghanaian communities, Nukunya (1992) made the following interesting observations.

1. Most chiefdoms or traditional political systems in Ghana are centralized just as Fortes and Evans-Pritchand found within other African chiefdoms. “A centralized society is defined as one that has chiefs or a chief or king whose authority is recognized throughout the territory.” One may therefore cite the Asantehene, Awomefia, Yaa-Na, Akwamuhene, Oforipanin and most of the paramount chiefs as examples of chiefs who superintend over centralized societies by traditional rule. These chiefs have their military formations that look similar but with slight variations. Whereas the Akans have Adontehene as the army commander, the Anlos have Avadada (war mother, to wit).
2. The Dagbon Kingdom is headed by Yaa-Na with hierarchy of other chiefs reporting to him.
3. Whereas the Akan systems are matrilineal, other systems in the country are patrilineal.

Perhaps mindful of the important roles chiefs play in the Ghanaian society and mindful of the fact that they are custodians of tradition and custom as well as the land tenure system, the framers of the 1992 Constitution have devoted a whole chapter of the Constitution (Chapter 22) to the chieftaincy institution. Apart from the constitutional provisions, there is a Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759).

The Constitution defines a Chief as “a person, who, hailing from the appropriate family and lineage, has been validly nominated, elected or selected and enstooled, enskinned or installed as a chief or queen mother in accordance with the relevant customary law and usage.” This gives credence to that it is not just any member of society who can be installed a chief regardless of the person’s leadership qualities or remarkable achievements in society.

Article 270 (2) of the Constitution even insulates the chieftaincy institution from parliamentary interference. It is to the extent that Parliament is not clothed with power to make or unmake a chief. The Constitution also maintained the centralized political structure Nukunya (1992) observed. For example, article 273 (1) & (2) clothe the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs with the appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine any cause or matter affecting chieftaincy which have already been determined by a Regional House of Chiefs.

An appeal in a matter so determined by the National House of Chiefs is only made to the Supreme Court. In tandem with the Constitution, 1992, Section 57 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) states, “Subject to the Constitution, the Court of Appeal, the High Court, Circuit Court and a District Court shall not entertain either at first instance or on appeal a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy.”

In Republic v High Court, Accra, Ex parte Odonkorteye [1984-86] 2 GLR 148, Amua-sakyi JA (as he then was) held inter alia, “The Courts would be astute enough to see through and thwart attempts by litigants … to circumvent the law by using the High Court to interfere in cases determined by the Judicial Committees, which its jurisdiction has been ousted apart from its supervisory jurisdiction."

In in Ex parte Odonkorteye, the brief facts are that a chieftaincy dispute arose within the Tekperbiawe Division of the Ada State, following the demise of Nene Korle II who until his death was the occupant of the Tekperbiawe Divisional Stool. The second applicant and the second respondent litigated over who between the two of them had been procedurally nominated, elected and installed as a successor to Nene Korle II who passed on to eternity.

The Judicial Committee of Ada Traditional Council relied on a document entitled “articles of agreement” and adjudicated the case in favour of the second applicant. As a result, the second respondent sought for a remedy at the High Court, Accra. He prayed the court to declare that the document called “articles of agreement” was a forgery, illegal and that the judgement of the Ada Traditional Council based on the articles was null and void.

Counsel for the applicant raised a preliminary objection that the tenets of section 52 of the Courts Act, 1971 (Act 372), and section 15 (1) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370) clothed the traditional courts with exclusive jurisdiction in chieftaincy matters. Therefore, the trial judge had no jurisdiction to hear the matter. Contrariwise, the trial judge ruled that the High Court (HC) was exercising its supervisory powers in hearing the suit, explaining that the suit did not qualify as a matter affecting chieftaincy. He therefore ruled in favour of the respondent, that “articles of agreement” was a forgery and therefore illegal hence the applicant lost the case.

The applicant therefore filed for the reactive quashing order of certiorari at the Supreme Court to set aside the judgement of the HC. The Supreme Court (SC) granted the certiorari in a majority decision on the ground that the HC acted without jurisdiction. The applicant won the case finally. The SC upheld the decision of the Ada Traditional Council that “articles of agreement” was not a forgery.

However, exceptions abound so far as the jurisdictions of the National and Regional Houses of Chiefs in chieftaincy matters are concerned. For example, in the case of Republic v High Court, Koforidua, ex parte Otutu Kono III [2009] SCGLR 1, the Supreme Court held as follows at Holding (1) of the Headnotes; "… the question of the existence, nature and composition of a traditional council had consistently been judicially regarded as a statutory or administrative matter which did not constitute a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. The trial High Court therefore had jurisdiction to determine the existence, character and composition of a traditional council."

In view of these fine legal arrangements for the chieftaincy institution in Ghana, one may assert that the Constitution and other enactments equate the appellate jurisdiction of the National House of Chiefs to the Court of Appeal in matters affecting chieftaincy. This is because an appeal to the Supreme Court in a matter or cause affecting chieftaincy can only originate from a case already determined by the National House of Chiefs. If this is so, why must genealogical sibling rivalry on the altar of greed be allowed to mar the sacred chieftaincy institution in the name of unnecessary disputes?

The legal frameworks further make the chieftaincy institution very relevant in rule of law for the traditional set-ups. Therefore, all Ghanaians must be concerned about several chieftaincy disputes across the length and breadth of the country. It appears that almost every community in Ghana is susceptible to chieftaincy dispute.

Sibling Rivalry And Other Germane Factors To Chieftaincy Disputes In Ghana

Members of a royal family in Ghana are people of the same genealogy whose forebears had handed over the chieftaincy roles for ages. In simplistic terms therefore, the royal family members are brothers and sisters. They are the descendants of the same great grandfather or grandmother whose stool or skin it is they occupy to wield the traditional power therefrom.

Unfortunately, the contemporary royals tend to initiate their own rivalries or they habour and continue with what their forebears told them regarding the ownership of the stool and skin. In most traditional areas, these ownership stories are shrouded in verbal handing over accounts rather than documented ones. As such, the stories become distorted along the line and bring about more confusion. At times too, the chieftaincy disputes erupt out of greed.

It would be recalled that we cited Nukunya (1992) as the anthropological authority who observed that adopted children within a kinship or lineage are supposed to be fully integrated into the family system to benefit from every inheritance bestowed on them by the biological parents. As such, children adopted into a royal family are supposed to play either all or some of the chieftaincy roles.

With passage of time however, the descendants of the biological children of the head of that lineage tend to point out to those of the adopted children that they are not or less entitled to the stool or skin and its accompanying properties. Certain untrue genealogical narrations are then fabricated to substantiate the greedy claims even against other biological siblings. This brings about bitterness and entrenched chieftaincy disputes. So long as members of this royal lineage dispute over who truly owns the stool or skin, an entire community is denied a chief or a queen mother. They hold an entire community to ransom for years. The community members look on helplessly.

Sometimes, the dispute occurs because on a rotational basis, it was the turn for a particular group within the lineage to produce a candidate to occupy the stool or skin but they lacked the candidate so they permitted their counterparts to occupy it once more. In view of the fact that these arrangements are not often documented, greed sets in and one party wants to take over the entire arrangement to the detriment of others who have also been entitled to it. This in my view qualifies to be called traditional corruption.

Even though the chief is installed or enskinned or enstooled to lead a whole community, the non-royal community members do not have a say in the candidate selection and hence they are unable to even intervene in the chieftaincy disputes. It therefore becomes an unfair treatment to the community members who become vulnerable victims of the chieftaincy feuds. Siblings even kill one another for chieftaincy. Stay alert for the next episode.

~Asante Sana ~

Author: Philip Afeti Korto

Email: [email protected]