An Open Letter to Torgbe Tepre Hodo IV, President of Volta Regional House of Chiefs

Torgbe Tepre Hodo IV, Paramount Chief of Anfoega Traditional Area and Chairman of Volta Regional House of Chiefs (VRHC).

Felicitations to you Torgbe Tepre Hodo IV, Paramount Chief of Anfoega Traditional Area and Chairman of Volta Regional House of Chiefs (VRHC). Torgbe, I have read the circular number VRHC132/VOL27/84 dated 28^th July, 2025 signed by the Ag. Registrar of the VRHC, Muhammed Ikililu under the caption, “Compliance with Section 15 (3) of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759”. In the last paragraph of the circular, the Registrar stated that he was directed by you (Torgbe Tepre Hodo IV), the President of the VHRC to issue the directive and that the House will not hesitate to take the appropriate steps to ensure that the respective traditional councils’ strict compliance with the directive.

Your circular which was addressed to all Members of the VRHC, Traditional Councils and Registrars of Traditional Councils in the Volta Region had gone viral on social media where I intercepted it.

I read the circular meticulously and decided to write this open letter to you to draw your attention to some concerns on grounds of constitutional and customary law in Ghana. My foreboding is that if care is not taken, your circular will further deepen the unresolved chieftaincy disputes in the Volta Region especially in some traditional areas in Tongu. I also opine that your circular herein referenced has the tendency to create even new chieftaincy disputes in the Volta Region.

For ease of understanding and reference, I will enumerate my arguments as follows for your thorough reading, Torgbe Tepre Hodo IV.

1. The main focus of your circular is that subject to Section 15 (3) of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759), Paramount Queen Mothers should chair Traditional Council Meetings in the absence of paramount chiefs within the traditional areas in the Volta Region.
2. This your directive was based on the premise that Paramount Queen Mothers are next in seniority to Paramount Chiefs in the Region. I find this assertion presumptive, that within all the Traditional Councils in the Volta Region, Queen Mothers are next in seniority to the Paramount Chiefs. Much as your assertion may be true in some traditional areas in the Region, it is not so in Tongu and Anlo, for example.
3. Apart from citing Section 15(3) of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759), your circular under reference also cites the Transitional Council Structure (TCS). I have read Section 15 (3) of Act 759 meticulously and it is evident that it does not make any reference at all to Queen a Mother let alone Paramount Queen Mother. It reads, “The President of a Traditional Council shall preside at meetings of the Council and where the President is unable to attend a meeting, the chief next to the President in seniority on the Council shall preside at the meeting”. Do you, therefore, seek to compel the traditional councils to comply with a statutory provision that does not exist?
4. I dare submit that your directive seems to suggest that it is universal in all traditional areas in the Volta Region that Paramount Queen Mothers are the next in seniority to the Paramount Chiefs just because the Queen Mother is equally described as Paramount. To me, such a school of thought can only come from a narrow and not a broad or purposive interpretation of Section 15 (3) of Act 759 and it is sinful to the customary law of some of the traditional areas in the Volta Region. Or is it an Anfoega concept you are imposing all traditional areas in the Volta Region with disregard for the unique customary practices across the Region?
5. In the Mepe and Mafi Traditional Areas, for example, the Manklalo is the Dutorfia hence in the absence of the Paramount Chiefs of these two traditional areas, the Manklalos who are next in seniority to the Paramount Chiefs lead the councils.
6. As you are undoubtedly aware, Section 13 (1) & (2) of Act 759 provides for the Chairmanship of Traditional Councils in Ashanti Region. It reads, “The paramount chief of a traditional area or in the case of the Kumasi traditional area, the Asantehene, shall be the President of the Traditional Council. (2) In any other case, the presidency shall be held by the paramount chiefs in the traditional area on a two-yearly rotational basis in alphabetical order of stool or skin name”.
7. Torgbe Tepre Hodo IV, if the framers of the law (Act 759) intended to make Paramount Queen Mothers as the next in seniority to Paramount Chiefs and the automatic chairpersons of traditional councils in the absence of substantive Paramount Chiefs, they would have expressly stated so. Even in the Kumasi Traditional Area which is a matrilineal community, Section 13 of Act 759 does not make the Asantehemaa the next in seniority to the Asantehene let alone chair the Asanteman Council in the absence of the substantive Asantehene. Your directive is thus in contravention of the provisions of Act 759, methinks.
8. In the Ashanti Region, the second in command is the occupant of Silver Stool of Mampong. After his recent demise, no Paramount Queen Mother presides over any decisions as regards acting in the stead of the deceased.
9. ⁠Section 14 of Act 759 also provides for membership of Traditional Councils but fails to show that the Queen Mother is next in command to the Paramount Chief.
10. As I stated earlier, your circular herein referenced also cites Traditional Council Structure (TCS) as one of the grounds for your directive that Paramount Queen Mothers are next in seniority to the Paramount Chiefs. Apparently, the TCS cited in your circular is an administrative directive and not a statute.
11. Torgbe Tepre Hodo IV, ⁠per Article 11 of the 1992 Constitution and the principle of supremacy of law, an administrative directive does not take precedence over customary law, which the Constitution, 1992 mentions as one of the cardinal sources of law in Ghana, with the Constitution itself being the supreme law. As such, the TCS which I do not think is a statute cannot presumptively be supreme to the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759).
12. Article 11 (2) of the Constitution, 1992 provides “The common law of Ghana shall comprise the rules of law generally known as the common law, the rules generally known as the doctrines of equity and the rules of customary law including those determined by the Superior Court of Judicature. Article 11 (3) of the Constitution, 1992 also provides inter alia that “customary law means the rules of law which by custom are applicable to particular communities in Ghana”.
13. Pursuant to the foregoing constitutional provisions, my questions are that:

1. Is the TCS referenced in your directive a determination by a superior court of judicature or it is a statue?
2. Does the assertion/directive in your circular that Paramount Queen Mothers are next in seniority to Paramount Chiefs in the Volta Region constitute one of the rules of law which by custom are universally applicable in the various traditional areas in the Volta Region? I think your answers to these questions would be a big NO, Torgbe.

14. It is trite that customary law is largely an unwritten law so there is nothing like Volta Regional Customary law which is binding on all Traditional Councils which will universally make one chief or Queen Mother chair a Traditional Council Meeting in the absence of the substantive Paramount Chief.
15. Your said circular fails to bring clarity to what it terms Traditional Council Structure (TCS). If the TCS is not a statute, then Act 759 will take precedence over the TCS. Also, Act 759 does not make the Paramount Queen Mother the next in seniority to the Paramount Chief within the hierarchy of chiefs in various Traditional Councils/Areas in Volta Region. As such, customary law of a Traditional Area, say Kpando, Anlo, Peki etc. may take precedence over what is termed TCS in your circular, unless the tenets of the TCS are based on case law as determined by one of the superior courts in Ghana.
16. In my view, therefore, the directive by the VRHC regarding Paramount Queen Mothers’ chairmanship of Traditional Councils in the absence of Paramount Chiefs is contrary to law and same may be quashed if it is brought up for determination by a court of competent jurisdiction.
17. Sections 58 and 59 of Act 759 which relate to categories of chiefs and national register of chiefs respectively, may be worthy of reference under the circumstance. Specifically, Section 58 of Act 759 gives the categories of chiefs in Ghana as follows:
    1. the Asantehene and Paramount Chiefs,
    2. Divisional Chiefs,
    3. Sub-divisional Chiefs,
    4. Adikrofo, and
    5. other chiefs recognized by the National House.

    It is evident that the rendition of Section 58 above makes no mention of any queen mother. Perhaps what you should have done Torgbe, is to give the said directive to traditional areas that you are aware that their Paramount Queen Mothers are next in seniority to the Paramount Chiefs.

18. Logically, a person chairs the traditional council because he is the paramount chief or he is next in seniority to the paramount chief [Section 15 (3) of Act 759] and therefore becomes the leader of all the chiefs in the traditional area in the absence of the paramount chief. Same is not the practice among most Tongu Ewes, for example and I think it is equally alien to the customs and practices of the Anlo Traditional Council chaired by the Awomefia. In Anlo, the Awada and not the Paramount Queen Mother is next in seniority to the Awomefia. Are by your directive seeking to change this time tested customary practice of the Anlo people?
19. Torgbe Tepre Hodo, it is trite that Article 277 of the Constitution, 1992 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”. I heard the argument from some quarters that per Article 277, a chief means a male or female person validly nominated, elected or selected and enstooled, enskinned or installed as a chief. If it is so, why does the same Article 277 mentions Queen Mother. Just like Section 15 (3) of Act 759 which your circular cited, Article 277 does not even make such a successorship provision that a Paramount Queen Mother must chair a traditional council in the absence of a substantive Paramount Chief.

Conclusion
One may argue that the VRHC’s directive on the subject matter is too generic without cognizance of the peculiar customs and practices within the respective traditional areas in the Volta Region and by extension, the other traditional areas of Ghana. In my view, your directive is ultra vires the 1992 Constitution and Act 759 and for that matter unlawful hence it is likely to be declared void and of no effect subject to Articles 1 (2) and 2(1) of the Constitution,1992.

It has been argued by some chiefs in tandem with your directive that a divisional chief cannot preside over a Paramount Queen Mother. Respectfully, this argument runs counter to the known customs and practices of some traditional areas such as Anlo, Mafi, Mepe etc. in the Volta Region.

If the Chieftaincy Act had intended to set the Paramount Queen Mother above the Manklalo (Dutorfia) as pertains in other traditional areas in Ghana, it would have expressly stated so. The interpretation your circular puts on Section 15 (3) of Act 759 is strange. Torgbe, you would recall that in the case of Republic v Regional Lands Officer, Ho: Ex parte Kludze [1997-98] 1 GLR1028 – 1038, a similar administrative directive by the Executive Secretary of the Lands Commission was found to be contrary to Article 295 (1) of the Constitution, 1992. Consequently, the directive was quashed and a mandamus application granted by the Court against the Regional Lands Officer. You may want to take a cue from this case that your administrative directive may be quashed by the courts.

To this end, I suggest that the VRHC under your presidency should rethink the said circular or else it will foment troubles within some traditional councils in the Region or some traditional councils will be compelled to subject your directive to judicial review and as an astute lawyer yourself, it is not lost on me that you know the implications thereof.

~Asante Sana~
Philip Afeti Korto
Hospital Administrator
[email protected]