Sibling Rivalry And Its Negative Cascading Effects On The Chieftaincy Institution In Ghana - Episode 3

It was indicated in episode 2 of this piece that numerous factors are germane to chieftaincy disputes in Ghana and perhaps elsewhere. Greed among the blue bloods and distorted oral historical accounts of lineage and turns of accession to the thrones are striking causative factors of chieftaincy disputes in Ghana.

As noted earlier from a genealogical perspective, members of a royal family are of the same blood. The chieftaincy dispute is always within one big family or clan and not between two different families or clans. For example, in the case of Republic v High Court, Accra, Ex parte Odonkorteye [1984-86] 2 GLR 148, emanating from the Tekperbiawe Division of the Ada state, the dispute occurred within the same royal family or clan (Tekperbiawe). It was not between the people of Tekperbiawe and another clan of Ada, for example Dangmebiawe or Kudzragbe.

But for greed in the utilization of stool or skin assets as well as fame and distorted historical accounts, what else should members of the same genealogy or family be fighting over as to who becomes the next chief? It goes to the extent that some of the feuding parties exhibit the Abimelech spirit and kill people of their own lineage or kinship just for a chieftaincy title. In Ghana, these killings may be done either physically or spiritually.

Those interested in killing their brothers and sisters for chieftaincy should persistently remember that human blood is a living thing and when spilled in murder, it speaks before its Maker, the Almighty God. The blood of the slew Abel spoke vengeance against his murderous brother, Cain.

Under its appellate jurisdiction over the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs, the Supreme Court of Ghana had settled several chieftaincy disputes between feuding parties of the same family and there are so many other chieftaincy disputes ongoing and not settled. It is all due to greed and lack of documented accounts of succession. Even in situations whereby the turns of succession to the thrones are well documented, some parties object to the accuracy of the succession plan or line all because of greed. When it comes to chieftaincy disputes, kingmakers and other people see a black object for example, and say it is near black. They sow mendacious seeds that geminate and later bear seeds of the weeds and not the cherished vine of harmony in the family.

Polygamy, Adoption And Its Impact On Royal Succession in Ghana

It appears the forebears in the royal families of Ghana were not greedy or divisive but their descendants are greedy. It would be recalled that Nukunya (1992) reported that even adopted children of a family were fully incorporated into the family such that they benefited from every inheritance. In contemporary times however, the descendants of the biological children of that great ancestor do not only fight among themselves but also want to push away, the descendants of the adopted children of that the family. Even the true biological members of the family are described as aliens through distorted history.

Most often, sibling rivalry comes in its worst forms among children from a polygamous marriage or concubinage. Sometimes too, children of the woman who was not procedurally married rather want to take everything and within royal families, this leads to unending chieftaincy disputes and to deaths. Abimelech was the only son of Gideon born by a concubine yet he killed 69 of his brothers who were born through marriage. Polygamy and in rare cases adoption coupled with greed therefore make murky, the negative cascading effects of sibling rivalry on the chieftaincy institution in Ghana.

The Spiritual Aspects Of The Chieftaincy Disputes Across Ghana

In Ghana, a chieftaincy stool or skin is not an ordinary thing. It is a spiritual object. It is the embodiment of the royal or communal soul of the people. Perhaps the most sacred of the chieftaincy stools is the Golden Stool of the Asantes. It originated from a mysterious source.

In fact, wars were fought and enemies killed in defence of many chieftaincy stools or skins. In the past, even human blood was used for some chieftaincy customs. One may want to read a bit of H.A. Nuamah’s 1985 book entitled, “Murder in the Palace at Kibi: An Account of the Kibi Ritual Murder Case.” This book vividly narrates issues relating to the ritual murder of Nana Akyea Mensah, an Odikro of Apedwa and the lengthy legal tussle that followed in the Gold Coast in 1944. It is therefore suggestive that the chieftaincy stool or skin is not just an ordinary thing like agbelikaklo to dispute over unnecessarily with greed.

Ghana’s supreme law (the 1992 Constitution) seemingly recognizes that a chieftaincy stool or skin is sacred. For example, article 270 (1) provides, “The institution of chieftaincy, together with its traditional councils as established by customary law and usage, is hereby guaranteed.” Article 270 is in tandem with article 11, which identifies customary law as one of the Common Law sources of law in Ghana. As such, whenever, the royals are being greedy and untruthful, the stool or skin itself may intensify the feud or spiritually kill the liars. They need to be mindful of this. In some cases, the chieftaincy dispute may be settled judicially but the spiritual ramifications linger.

The stools and skins receive various customary rituals or sacrifices yearly in the form of purifications. The stools are worshipped and more specifically, the black stools are symbolically the embodiments of the ancestral souls. This is why the Akans carry out the “werempe custom” (blackening of a demised chief’s stool with blood). This custom is believed be the only way the soul of a demised chief will enter a stool before the stool is kept in the black stool house for worship (Nuamah, 1985). Definitely, a stool or skin that is spiritual would not endorse disputes over successional accessions unto it. This is what royal families must know. But for the sacredness of chieftaincy, the Constitution, 1992 would not have denied even Parliament the power to make or unmake a chief [article 272 (a) & (b)].

Recommendations To Regional And National Houses of Chiefs And Kingmakers

Methinks that the Regional and National Houses of chiefs need to play certain proactive roles that should forestall chieftaincy disputes in the country and the Supreme Court and for that matter the Chief Justice must throw weight behind such a proactive trajectory of dealing with the chieftaincy dispute menace in Ghana.

Accordingly, it is also my humble submission that both the Regional and National Houses of Chiefs should ensure that every royal palace in Ghana documents the history of its chieftaincy with an attached succession plan. Copies of these historical accounts may be compiled into a regional document. Copies may be deposited with the Houses of Chiefs and perhaps with the Supreme Court.

The Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences (GAAS) is made of astute scholars of various fields. The GAAS members may be engaged to help in documenting the undisputed chieftaincy historical accounts. The anthropological members of GAAS, for example, G.K. Nukunya may help in this direction. We equally have Historians and Sociologists as members of GAAS who can help in this direction. The Regional and National Houses chiefs must therefore go beyond hearing disputed cases and settling them, to ensuring that the disputes do not occur at all.

The National and Regional Houses of Chiefs must sanction any corrupt kingmakers who describe black as near black thereby endorse two or more candidates for the same stool or skin at the same time. Kingmakers or owners of stools and skins must ensure that sibling rivalries are amicably settled because such rivalries have disputatious consequences for the stools or skins or reigns.

The National House of Chiefs may also want to establish royal training centres to train royal lineages. The royal training centres may come out with courses or ideologies that discourage chieftaincy disputes and promote chieftaincy or royal harmony.

A chieftaincy dispute holds an entire community to ransom and retrogresses communal development. As such, the community members must have a say in who becomes a chief. Who qualifies to ascend a stool or skin should be a communal decision and not for only few royal family members who out of greed fight among themselves and distort history thereby making a fool out of the community members.

Conclusion

Unsettled sibling rivalries lead to further disputes within a family and in Ghana, this tends to affect the pageantry and sacredness of the chieftaincy institution. Sibling rivalry is an age- long thing and it appears it will not end till the world ends. As such, it must be managed as any of the aspects of life. Parents should be circumspect when dealing with their children because overt parental preferences for one child to the other also lead to sibling rivalries. Most chieftaincy disputes in Ghana are highly attributable to age- long and/or contemporary sibling rivalries as well as to greed and distorted oral historical accounts. The unnecessary and numerous disputes are taking away the erstwhile reverence and respect for the royal classes in Ghana.

Regardless of the discussant perspectives, sibling rivalry has negative cascading effects on the chieftaincy institution in Ghana. The piece has come to an end with this episode (episode 3). Please share your thoughts.

~Asante Sana ~

Author: Philip Afeti Korto

Email: [email protected]