Facts About Wenchi Stool Affairs

The history of the Wenchi Stool is characterised by a litany of judgments of the courts of Ghana and reports of various committees of inquiries set up by the Governments of the Gold Coast and Ghana to unravel the full circumstances of the origin of the Wenchi Stool and which family or families have the right to occupy both the male and female stools of Wenchi.
I present to you a summary of the main findings and conclusions, by committees and court rulings.

THE GENESIS OF THE CONTEMPORARY DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TWO MAIN CLAIMANTS TO THE WENCHI STOOL

The genesis of the dispute between the two main families laying claim to the Wenchi stool can be gathered from the reports of two main committees of inquiry into Wenchi stool affairs - the 1952 Jackson Commission of Inquiry and the 1976 National House of Chiefs Committee of Inquiry.
The two main families that have laid claim to the Wenchi stool are the Ahenfie Yefri royal family and the Sofoase Yefri family. The relevant background facts are that:

a. The Ahenfie Yefri royal family is the family of the late Paramount Chief, Osagyefo Abrefa Mbore Bediatuo VI passed away in June 2004. The Sofoase Yefri family is recognised as the family of the late Dr K. A. Busia whose brother was Nana Kusi Apea.

b. By 1976 (when the National House of Chiefs Committee of Inquiry into Wenchi stool affairs was set up), all the Queen mothers of Wenchi, with the exception of the one in place in 1976, whose purported enstoolment was disputed and was the subject of inquiry by the Committee, came
from the Ahenfie Yefri Family.

c. All the twenty-two occupants of the male stool, with the exception of four, came from the Ahenfie Yefri family. The other four came from the Sofoase Yefri family.

d. From 1936 to 1949, Nana Kwame Abrefah V of Ahenfie Yefri was the Omanhene of Wenchi. Destoolment charges, principally instigated by the Sofoase Yefri's family was preferred against him on seven different occasions. On each occasion, the then Asanteman Council found in favour of Nana Kwame Abrefa V and dismissed the charges.

e. On the seventh occasion of the institution of destoolment charges against him, Nana Kwame Abrefa V became fed up and abdicated in 1949.

CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE ENSTOOLMENT AND DESTOOLMENT OF NANA KUSI APEA
f. On the abdication of Nana Kwame Abrefa V, the Queen mother of Wenchi at the time, Nana Gyebua Ababio of Ahefie Yefri, nominated her own son as the new Omanhene. This nomination was however rejected by the people as they were of the view that the time had come for Wenchi to be ruled by a well-educated man. The Queen mother in the circumstances, nominated Dr. K. A. Busia of Sofoase Yefri as the Omanhene.

g. Dr. Busia immediately declined, citing the nature of his work, and offered the stool to his younger brother, Nana Kusi Apea. The Queen mother vehemently objected to this as contrary to the custom of Wenchi. It was her position that she was entitled to make three nominations and therefore, the decline of the nomination by Dr. Busia meant that she was left with two chances to nominate a candidate for the stool. This marked the beginning of hostility towards Nana Kusi Apea. Further, some young men complained that Kusi Apea was circumcised and had defective toes, and therefore, by the custom of Wenchi, was unfit to occupy the Wenchi Stool. All these protests against Nana Kusi Apea were brought to the attention of the then Asantehene who was preparing to swear Nana Kusi
Apea in as the Wenchihene.

h. The Queen-mother sent a telegram to the Asantehene through an intermediary, raising objections to the swearing-in of Nana Kusi Apea and demanding to be heard before a decision would be taken on the swearing-in of Nana Kusi Apea. Nonetheless, the Asantehene proceeded to swear in Nana Kusi Apea as the Wenchihene on 3rd January 1950.

i. Upon Nana Kusi Apea's return to Wenchi after having been sworn in as Wenchihene, he caused the destoolment of the Queen mother as a result of the telegram he sent to the Asantehene. A new queenmother, Nana Kusi Apea's sister, Nana Frema II, was quickly installed in early 1950 after having been nominated by Dr Abrefa Busia.
For the first time in history (1950), the Queenmother's stool was occupied by a member of the Sofoase Yefri family.
This action infuriated members of the Ahenfie Yefri royal family as well as Wenchiman generally.

j. Subsequently, certain unacceptable decisions taken by Nana Kusi Apea in his reign as Wenchihene made him very unpopular in Wenchi and resulted in a statement in Parliament by the MP for Wenchi, Bediako Poku as well as a petition to the Governor of the Gold Coast. These decisions were:
• The appointment of a close friend of his as Treasury Clerk and the siphoning of huge sums of money to assist in the commercial
activity of Nana Kusi Apea's brother who was running a store in the town. This was admitted in a statement to the Police by the Treasury Clerk.
• Assault and molestation of various opponents of Nana Kusi Apea.
• The uncustomary destoolment of some sub-chiefs perceived to be opponents of Nana Kusi Apea.

k. The Governor of the Gold Coast in 1951, appointed Justice Jackson, a Justice of the High Court to conduct an inquiry into these matters.

THE 1952 JACKSON COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
1. By Order No. 7 of 1952, the Governor of the Gold Coast, Sir Noble Arden-Clarke suspended the Wenchi Native Authority and the Wenchihene and his Councillors as the Native Authority for the Wenchi Division of Ashanti. By Order No.16, the Wenchi Native Court was suspended.
The Commission was set up to enquire into:
i.
Whether there has been an abuse of power by the Wenchihene and his Councillors functioning as Divisional Council of the Wenchi Division of Ashanti, following the proceedings for the destoolment of the Wenchihene which terminated on 14th August 1951.
ії.The circumstances under which sums and property.

2. The Jackson Commission found that there were two branches of the Wenchi stool family. See paragraph 10.
3. The Wenchihene abdicated in January 1937, following an enquiry into allegations of embezzlement of stool funds.
4. A new Wenchihene, Kwame Abrefa V, also of Ahenfie Yefri, was enstooled in February 1937. There were many charges of misappropriation of stool funds leveled against him between 1938 and 1948. He survived them. However, in 1949, he seemed to have lost the trust of both the "young men" and Elders of the town. The Elders charged him with misappropriation of stool funds, and he abdicated on 4th December 1949.
5. Nana Kusi Apea, Dr Busia's brother, was enstooled on 3rd January 1950.
6. The queen mother was destooled and the new Wenchihene's sister, Afia Busia was enstooled as the queen mother.
7. Dr. Busia stood for election to the Legislative Assembly in Wenchi but was defeated.
8. The District Commissioner reported to the Chief Commissioner by a letter dated 18th June 1951, that, there are two royal families in Wenchi. A promise was made by the Busia family that since a member of the Busia family was on the stool, a member of the other family should be queen mother. This agreement was however breached by the Busia family when they suddenly installed a queen mother in 1950.

9. On 7th October 1951, certain members of the Ahenfie Yefri Royal Family - Kwame Atakora, Kofi Adomako, Atuahene, Koomson, and Kwame Mensah were convicted of acts with intent to undermine the lawful power and authority of the Wenchihene. They were sentenced to a day's imprisonment.
10. On 4th April 1952, a section of the young men and women of Wenchi petitioned the Chief Commissioner of Ashanti for the setting up of a committee to probe allegations of abuse of power, financial impropriety, and embezzlement of state funds against the Wenchihene, Nana Kusi Apea. The Jackson Commission of Enquiry was set up in consequence thereof.
11. In its report dated April 1952, the Jackson Commission found the Wenchihene and his Councillors to have acted unreasonably in the prosecution of 163 persons before the Native Court and mulcted them in costs of more than £1,500.
12. The Jackson Commission found the Wenchihene culpable of abuse of power and unlawful demands of pacification fees and other payments.
13. The Jackson Commission recommended criminal investigations and prosecution against the Wenchihene and his Councillors. Nana Kusi Apea was convicted by the Wenchi Magistrate Court presided over by Mr H. J. Criland (an expatriate) of counts 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 relating to assault and sentenced to a fine of £150.

MATTERS OCCURRING AFTER THE JACKSON COMMISSION
REPORT
14. Soon after the conviction of Nana Kusi Apea by the Wenchi Magistrate Court, thirteen (13) destoolment charges were preferred against him by the kingmakers of Wenchi. The charges related to embezzlement of stool funds, extortion, assault of citizens of the town, betrayal of the trust of the Wenchi State, and various acts of lawlessness.

15. Despite several invitations to him, Nana Kusi Apea refused to answer the destoolment charges. The kingmakers proceeded to go through the customary processes required for his destoolment, and he was destooled.
The relevant customary rites were performed to signify his destoolment.
The same was published in the local bulletin and was duly gazetted in the Ghana Gazette No. 101 on 1st November 1958.

16. Following Nana Kusi Apea's destoolment, Nana Kwame Abrefa of Ahenfie Yefri who had abdicated before Nana Kusi Apea, was renominated as Wenchihene, but this was rejected by the kingmakers as he was deemed to be too old. Nana Abrefa Mbore Bediatuo VI was then nominated and enstooled in accordance with custom as the new Wenchihene in 1958.

17. Nana Abrefa Mbore Bediatuo remained as Wenchihene without any complaint against him until the Chieftaincy (Amendment) Decree, 1966 (NLCD 112) was enacted by the National Liberation Council Government. Section 3(1) of NLCD 112 withdrew the recognition of Nana Abrefa Mbore Bediatuo VI as Wenchihene and prohibited him from exercising functions as chief, when he had been properly installed as such after the satisfaction of all customary procedures required, and there had been no challenge throughout the 8 years he had been on the stool between 1958 and 1966. Further, he had not been customarily destooled.

18. NLCD 112, in the absence of a re-enstoolment of Nana Kusi Apea after his customary destoolment in 1958, gave recognition to him as the chief of Wenchi. He was effectively enstooled by that decree.

THE REPORT OF THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO THE WENCHI STOOL AFFAIRS, 1976
Background
19. Following the destoolment of Nana Abrefa Mbore Bediatuo VI as Omanhene of Wenchi Traditional Area in December 1966 by L C D 112, and the enstoolment of Nana Kusi Apea as the new Omanhene by the same NLCD 112, some chiefs and kingmakers of Wenchi led by the Gyasewahene of Wenchi petitioned the Government by letters dated 6th November 1972 and 14th June 1973 for the constitution of a Committee of Inquiry by the National House of Chiefs to inquire into the Wenchi Stool affairs.

20. By virtue of Section 3 of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370) which stipulated that the National House of Chiefs shall be responsible for advising any person or authority with responsibility for any matter relating to chieftaincy, the Commissioner for Chieftaincy, in 1973, tasked the National House of Chiefs to set up a five-member Committee of Inquiry and advise the Government.

21. The petitioners had asserted in their petition that NLCD 112 by which Nana Abrefa Mbore Bediatuo was destooled and Nana Kusi Apea enstooled, constituted a "monstrous abomination fraught with serious consequences and an undue interference in chieftaincy as regulated by custom".
The terms of reference for the Committee were:
i. whether the destoolment of Nana Abrefa Mbore Bediatuo was in accordance with custom;
whether Nana Kusi Apea was destooled, and if so, whether his destoolment was in accordance with customs; and
ii. whether Nana Kusi Apea was a chief at the time of publication of
NCLD 112.
The petitioners were represented by Alhaji B. E. Kwaw-Swanzy (with A. K. Mmieh) and respondents were represented by J. Owusu-Yaw (with K. Adumua-Bossman and J. F. K. Adadevoh).
After a three-year inquiry, the Committee in 1976, came out with its report. Significant findings by the Committee relating to the origin of the Wenchi Stool

22. Both parties agree that there are two royal houses in Wenchi but disagree on how the other came into being - paragraph 11.

23. Ahenfie Yefri claims to be the originators of the Wenchi stool, i.e. owners of both the Queenmother's stool and the male stool of Wenchi. Sofoase Yefri also claimed that they were the real originators of both the male and female stools of Wenchi - paragraph 17.

24. The Committee found that all the Queenmothers of Wenchi, with the exception of the one in place at the time of the Committee's work in 1976, who was an imposition, came from the Ahenfie Yefri Family. All the twenty-two occupants of the male stool, with the exception of four, came from the Ahenfie Yefri family. The other 4 came from the Sofoase Yefri family - paragraphs 12, 13 and 14.

25. The Committee accepted the account of the petitioners relating to Nana Asase Baodensie as the originator of the Wenchi Stool Family and that, that Nana Baodensie was the ancestress of the petitioners (of the Ahenfie Yefri). The Committee also found that the Sofoase people were originally not a royal family but were people placed under a tree to prepare food for the ancestral spirits of Wenchi - paragraph 22. Hence their name Sodoo.
Whether Nana Mbore Bediatuo IV was destooled customarily.

26. There was no evidence before the Committee to show that Nana Bediatuo was destooled customarily. The evidence showed that his destoolment was authorised by L C D 112. The decree withdrew his recognition as a chief. No reasons were given for the withdrawal of recognition of Nana Bediatuo as a chief, as was in the case of other chiefs in other parts of the country who were elevated to be paramount chiefs contrary to custom - paragraph 24.

27. Section 4 of NLCD 112 empowered the Minister to prohibit a person who is not a chief from exercising the functions of a chief. Nana Bediatu was a chief and had been customarily nominated, elected, and installed as a chief in accordance with custom. Therefore the invocation of section 4 of the Chieftaincy Act, 1961 (Act 81) by NLCD 112 to prohibit him from being a chief was wrong in law - paragraph 27.

28. Nana Bediatuo had been validly nominated, elected, and installed as a chief in 1958, following the customary destoolment of Nana Kusi Apea.
The Queenmother of Wenchi, Nana Afia Frema, had refused to nominate a candidate for election as a chief. The Gyase Division was thus entitled to take steps to elect a new Omanhene for installation. The steps taken by the Gyase division were proper and customary. Nana Bediatuo VI went through all the procedures customarily enjoined, including the final celebration at Keniankor three years later - paragraphs 34 and 35.
• Carefully examine pages 22 and 23

29. The decision by Kusi Apea in 1950, to destool the queenmother
infuriated the young men of Ahenfie Yefri because the queenmother hailed from that family.
A new queen mother, Nana Frema I (sister of Dr Busia and Nana Kusi Apea), was installed after having been nominated by Dr. Busia. Due to the manner in which Kusi Apea destooled the former queen mother and dealt with all the young men who had an issue with his nomination and installation as a chief, he became very unpopular and faced a number of destoolment charges.
Two committees of inquiry - the Hardy Committee and the Jackson Committee were set up in his reign.

30. Thirteen (13) destoolment charges were brought against Kusi Apea in 1958. After the publication of the Jackson Committee report, he was arraigned before the Magistrate's Court, Wenchi on 4th November 1952 on a number of charges including extortion and assault. He was acquitted of two counts of wilful oppression and extortion but found guilty of assault. He was sentenced to a fine - paragraphs 40, 41 and 42.

31. Soon after Kusi Apea's conviction of assault against his own people, destoolment charges were preferred against him by a number of kingmakers who were disturbed by the developments. The charges related to abuse of Wenchi state funds, wrongly enstooling various sub-chiefs contrary to native law and custom, wrongful and uncustomary destoolment of sub-chiefs who were opposed to him, refusal to withdraw his membership of the Asanteman Council in a manner prejudicial to the existence and preservation of the Wenchi State and for being cited in the Jackson Report for abuse of power, extortion and wilful oppression of his subjects.

32. Nana Kusi Apea refused to defend the charges of destoolment preferred against him. He was found guilty and destooled.

33. In reaction to this, Nana Kusi Apea appealed against his alleged
destoolment to the Wenchi State Council on the ground that the alleged destoolment was unconstitutional and contrary to custom, because the persons who declared him destooled, had no customary right to declare him destooled. The Wenchi State Council upheld Nana Kusi Apea's
appeal and declared the destoolment unconstitutional and contrary to custom.

34. On 1st November 1958, the destoolment of Nana Kusi Apea was published in the Ghana Gazette by the Government.
35. The National House of Chiefs Committee of Inquiry determined that the Wenchi State Council did not have the jurisdiction to inquire into any matter of a constitutional nature involving a Paramount Chief. The Paramount Chief is the head of the Council and it is inconceivable that a case involving him should be tried by sub-chiefs. Further, no State Council was empowered to go into destoolment charges and determine whether or not a person was liable for destoolment or not. The judgment of the Wenchi State Council purporting to nullify the destoolment of Nana Kusi Apea was, therefore, null, void, and of no effect - paragraph 71.

36. On the substantive issue of whether the destoolment of Nana Kusi Apea was in accordance with custom, the Committee of Inquiry held that the destoolment was valid as the persons who purported to destool him were customarily entitled to do so and that, the venue for the customary
destoolment was a proper venue for the customary destoolment of Nana Kusi Apea. If Kusi Apea had appealed to the Asanteman Council, that council would have been competent to deal with it. Unfortunately, he asked his own traditional council to confirm whether the destoolment was customary or not - paragraphs 88 and 89.
Whether Nana Kusi Apea was a chief at the time of publication of NLCD 112 on 2nd December 1966

37. The National House of Chiefs Commission of Inquiry found that after Kusi Apea had been destooled in 1958, he did not appeal against his destoolment to the Asanteman Council, the appropriate forum. He eventually left the jurisdiction for the United Kingdom and Nigeria. The Government followed up with a withdrawal of his recognition as a chief by a publication of the same in the Ghana Gazette. Nana Kusi Apea thus remained a destooled chief from September 1958 to 2nd December 1966.
He admitted under cross-examination at the proceedings of the Committee of Inquiry that, he ceased to perform the functions of a chief after handing over the stool paraphernalia to the Gyasehene and Sanaahene - paragraphs 92 and 93.

38. The Committee of Inquiry found that Nana Kusi Apea after having been away from Wenchi for 8 years (following his destoolment), and not having any contact with his people, and not having been customarily enstooled again before the passage of NLCD 112, could not be said to be a chief by 2nd December 1966. The Decree could not be competent to properly make him a chief over his people by custom - paragraph 94.

39. In the view of the Committee, L C D 112 could not have customarily enstooled Nana Kusi Apea, nor could Government recognition of a chief be given in a vacuum without the person being beforehand customarily nominated, elected, and installed as a chief. Nana Kusi Apea was not
customarily, and in law, entitled to be on the Wenchi Stool- paragraph 96.

40. The Committee was of the view that the proper person customarily, and in law, entitled to be on the Wenchi Stool was Nana Abrefa Mbore Bediatuo VI, who had not been customarily destooled but had been wrongly removed only by dint of L C D 112.
Whether Nana Kusi Apea was circumcised or had defective toes.

41. The Committee found that there was nothing on Nana Kusi Apea's penis that showed that he had been circumcised. A closer look at the toes of Nana Kusi Apea also showed that same were not materially defective. He had ten toes and not nine - paragraph 100.
42. The Committee relied on medical expertise to support its conclusions - paragraphs 101 and 103.

- ENACTMENT OF SMCD 64
43. The National House of Chiefs presented the report of the Committee to the Commissioner responsible for Chieftaincy matters. Following the acceptance of the report by the Commissioner for Chieftaincy, the Supreme Military Council enacted the Wenchi Paramount Stool Affairs
Decree, 1976 (SMCD 64).
44. By this, the purported enstoolment of Nana Kusi Apea I by NLCD 112 in December 1966, was declared contrary to custom, null and void.
45. The nomination, election, and enstoolment of Nana Abrefa Mbore Bediatuo VI in 1958 was held to be in accordance with the custom of Wenchi, and therefore, his purported removal by L C D 112 was declared void and of no effect.
46. The purported removal or destoolment of the late Queenmother, Nana Gyebua Ababio, and some divisional chiefs of Wenchi by L C D 112 was also declared to be contrary to custom and therefore null and void.

JUDGMENT OF THE 1986 COURT OF APPEAL IN
Nana Kusi Apea
vrs.
1. The National House of Chiefs
2. Nana Abrefa Mbore Bediatuo IV

47. Nana Kusi Apea in 1983, by his counsel, William Adumoa-Bossman, filed an application for mandamus at the High Court to compel the National House of Chiefs to enter Nana Kusi Apea's name in the National Register of Chiefs as the Omanhene and Paramount Chief of the Wenchi
Traditional Area.

48. The basis of the writ of mandamus was that on the eve of leaving office, the chairman of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) had signed a decree by which it purported to repeal SMCD 64 and the Wenchi Queenmother’s Stool Property (Restoration Decree), SMCD 102, and therefore he, Nana Kusi Apea, is a chief.

49. Amua-Sekyi J. (as he then was), on 9th July 1984, refused to grant the order of mandamus on the basis that the decree purportedly signed was never printed and had not been published. The originals were also nowhere available. Nana Kusi Apea appealed to the Court of Appeal.

50. The Court of Appeal coram Taylor JSC, Abban, and Ampiah JJA (as they then were), on 10th April 1986, dismissed the appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the invalidity of the purported PNDC decree relied on by Nana Kusi Apea. The Court further held that, in any event, mandamus was ill-
suited as a relief for the appellant as a remedy of an appeal to the Supreme Court, had been specifically provided by the Chieftaincy Act for a person aggrieved by a refusal of the National House of Chiefs to register him as a chief.

PETITION BY KUSI APEA IN 2004
51. In 2004, Nana Abrefa Mbore Bediatuo VI, passed away. After his death, Nana Kusi Apea filed a petition at the Judicial Committee of the Brong-Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs against the Queen mother of Wenchi and the Wenchi Traditional Council for a declaration that he was the sitting Paramount Chief of Wenchi Traditional Area. Nana Kusi Apea's petition was dismissed by the Regional House of Chiefs on 6th June 2006.

IN RE WENCHI STOOL AFFAIRS; NEKTIA & Ors V.
SRAMANGYEDUA III & Ors [2011] 2 SCGLR 1024

52. Soon after the dismissal of Nana Kusi Apea's petition by the Regional House of Chiefs, the kingmakers of Wenchi requested the Queen's mother to nominate a person to be considered as the Paramount Chief of Wenchi to replace the deceased. The queen mother replied that she needed three weeks as she had to engage in consultations. The kingmakers insisted that they could not wait for three weeks for a new chief to be nominated.
Following the stalemate, the kingmakers approached the queen mother three times within a space of twenty-four (24) hours for her nomination.

53. Alleging that the queen mother had delayed unreasonably, the kingmakers approached the Obaapanin of the Ahenfie Yefri royal family who performed the customary role of nominating a candidate for a new Paramount Chief. Eventually, Kwadwo Nketia was nominated, elected, installed, and enstooled as the new Paramount Chief of Wenchi. Feeling aggrieved, the queen mother, together with three other chiefs, filed a petition at the Regional House of Chiefs seeking an annulment of the purported nomination, election, installation, and enstoolment of Kwadwo Nketia as null and void. The action was dismissed by the Brong-Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs. However, the National House of Chiefs upheld an appeal by the queen mother and declared the nomination, installation, and enstoolment of Kwadwo Nketia as null, void, and of no effect. The new Chief appealed to the Supreme Court.

54. On 26th October 2011, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that:
i.Nomination of a person was a sine qua non for subsequent election, installation, and enstoolment as chief. On the facts of the case, the purported nomination of Kwadwo Nketia as Wenchihene was totally flawed, faulty, invalid, and void. Thus, the ex post facto processes of election, enstoolment, and installation as chief were irrelevant as they lacked the necessary foundation on the basis of which they could stand.
By custom, only accredited queen mothers were authorised to make nominations. The only exception was where the queen mother refused to make the nomination and the kingmakers had taken over that function.

iii. There is no doubt that the queen mother was given three chances to make a nomination but all occurred within 24 hours. This was not reasonable. The queen mother's request for time to consult was not unreasonable. She could thus not be deemed to have refused to perform her customary role.

The above constitutes a summary of the facts and court and committee findings on the Wenchi Stool.

Reindorf Nana Kwadwo Oware
Aide to Wenchimanhene

   Comments0