The Overlords Or Kings Of Ghana: Restoring Sanctity To Ghana’s Chieftaincy Institution

The term Overlord was introduced into Ghana’s chieftaincy lexicon by British colonial authorities as a way to acknowledge the highest-ranking traditional rulers without equating them to the term King, which they reserved exclusively for the British monarchy. This was a deliberate colonial construct to deny African sovereigns the same status as European monarchs, despite the deep authority and legitimacy many of these rulers commanded in precolonial times (Boahen, 1987).

Among those designated as Overlords by the British were the Nayiri of Mamprugu, the Asantehene, the Yaa Naa of Dagbon, the Bimbila Naa of Nanung, the Yagbonwura of Gonja, the Wa Naa, and the Ga Mantse. These rulers not only preside over Paramount Chiefs but also lead entire traditional areas with unique customary laws and deeply rooted historical legitimacy. By all definitions, these figures are Kings in their own right. However, the colonial administration avoided such terminology to safeguard the supremacy of the British Crown.

After Ghana gained independence in 1957, the country adopted a republican, unitary system of governance. As such, the office of the President became the sole head of state, and traditional authorities were no longer officially referred to as kings, even though their roles remained deeply entrenched in the sociopolitical fabric of the nation.

Despite this, Ghana’s Constitution and legal framework accord substantial recognition and respect to the institution of chieftaincy. Article 270 of the 1992 Constitution explicitly guarantees the chieftaincy institution and prohibits Parliament from enacting laws that undermine it. The Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759), provides further clarity by formalizing the structures and roles of the National House of Chiefs, Regional Houses of Chiefs, and Traditional Councils.

In addition, the Chieftaincy (Membership of Regional Houses of Chiefs) Instrument, 2020 (L.I. 2409) further affirms the statuses of the Nayiri, Asantehene, Yaa Naa, Bimbila Naa, and Yagbonwura, and distinguishes them from all other chiefs in Ghana. Notably, it names the Nayiri, Asantehene, and Yagbonwura as Presidents of the North East, Ashanti, and Savannah Regional Houses of Chiefs respectively. For the Northern Region, the presidency alternates between the Yaa Naa and the Bimbila Naa. These five rulers are not members of the National House of Chiefs per se, but have permanent representatives on the Standing Committee of the House, a recognition of their unique status and influence within Ghana’s traditional governance system.

Misuse of the Title "Overlord"
It is, therefore, troubling that in recent years, the title Overlord is being misappropriated by political actors and certain unauthorized traditional figures, especially in northern Ghana. Of particular concern is the attempt to confer the status of Overlord on Aninchema Abugrago, who purports to be the Bawku Naaba. This is a fundamental misrepresentation.

Historically, the Bawku skin is a Paramountcy under the jurisdiction of the Nayiri of Mamprugu, just as are the Talensi, Bongo, and other paramountcies in the Upper East Region. The classification of Bawku as subordinate to the Nayiri is supported by historical records dating back to the colonial period and further affirmed in various legal rulings and chieftaincy listings (Ladouceur, 1979).

In fact, the National House of Chiefs in 1983 described Abugrago’s father as a commoner, with no claim to royal lineage or legitimacy within the Mamprugu traditional system. Consequently, the current Kusasi attempt to elevate Abugrago Aninchema to the status of Overlord is an interpolation, a fabrication, and a grievous affront to the sanctity of Ghana’s chieftaincy institution.

Elevation of Skins: A Sacred Process
According to customary law and practice, the elevation of any skin from a Paramountcy to a higher status must be sanctioned by the enskinning authority under whose jurisdiction the skin falls. In this case, only the Nayiri has the constitutional, customary, and historical authority to elevate the Bawku skin. Any unilateral political or partisan elevation of Abugrago by Kusasi interest groups—who lack historical standing—must be regarded as a mockery of due process and traditional decorum.

The Kusasi propaganda campaign to rebrand Bawku as an autonomous kingdom is not only deceptive but also constitutes what may be described as traditional masturbation—a vulgar distortion of a sacred institution to satisfy personal and ethnic ego. As one scholar aptly noted, “Chieftaincy in Ghana is not merely symbolic; it is a deeply political institution governed by ritual, lineage, and authority structures that must be respected” (Odotei & Awedoba, 2006).

It is, therefore, highly unacceptable that the Inspector General of Police and some politicians have referred to Abugrago Aninchema as Overlord. Such actions constitute an insult to the sacred institution of chieftaincy and undermine the very legal and customary frameworks that the Constitution seeks to protect.

Conclusion
Ghana’s chieftaincy institution is a revered legacy that must be preserved with utmost care, objectivity, and respect. It is not a political football nor an avenue for ethnic propaganda. The reckless appropriation of titles such as Overlord by individuals or groups lacking historical, legal, and customary legitimacy threatens to destabilize not only local governance but national cohesion.

We call on all well-meaning traditional authorities, academics, political leaders, and civil society to condemn this distortion and reaffirm their commitment to preserving the dignity of our chieftaincy system. As the saying goes: chieftaincy is serious business—not a playground for those seeking to gratify personal ambition at the expense of history, law, and tradition.

References
Boahen, A. A. (1987). African Perspectives on Colonialism. The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ladouceur, P. A. (1979). Chiefs and Politicians: The Politics of Regionalism in Northern Ghana. Longman.

Odotei, I. K., & Awedoba, A. K. (Eds.). (2006). Chieftaincy in Ghana: Culture, Governance and Development. Sub-Saharan Publishers.

Constitution of the Republic of Ghana (1992), Article 270.

Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759).
Chieftaincy (Membership of Regional Houses of Chiefs) Instrument, 2020 (L.I. 2409).

Mamprugu Kaya Ni Ta'ada, (2025).

   Comments0