The Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, has reflected on what he described as decades of political interference in Ghana's institution of chieftaincy
The report indicates that the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, has reflected on what he described as decades of political interference in Ghana’s institution of chieftaincy, saying that successive governments at various periods after independence enacted laws that undermined customary authority by removing chiefs or recognising others outside established traditional processes.
It further notes that he stated although the institution survived colonial rule and political upheavals, it was, at different times in the country’s post-independence history, treated as a competing centre of authority by political actors.
“It is a matter of record that chieftaincy has, at different moments in our post-independent history, been sidelined by political actors who saw it as a rival centre of authority.”
READ ALSO: Delays in chieftaincy cases undermine public confidence — Otumfuo to judiciary
The Asantehene made the remarks during the Supreme Court’s 150th Anniversary Celebrations and Lecture Series held in Kumasi on Thursday, where he delivered a lecture on the historical relationship between the judiciary and the institution of chieftaincy.
The event formed part of activities marking 150 years of Ghana’s apex court and brought together members of the Bench and Bar, traditional rulers, legal practitioners, academics and public officials to reflect on the evolution of justice and constitutional governance.
Tracing the evolution of chieftaincy from the colonial era to the Fourth Republic, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II stated traditional authority experienced periods of both recognition and restriction under British indirect rule.
“Chieftaincy was at various turns courted and co-opted through indirect rule. Yet it also had its judicial functions curtailed and its authority made to answer to a foreign sovereign and foreign law.”
According to him, Ghana’s attainment of independence in 1957 did not immediately resolve the constitutional relationship between the state and traditional authority.
“Independence in 1957 did not resolve this tension so much as inherit it. Successive constitutions grappled, sometimes uncertainly, with where chieftaincy properly belonged within a modern constitutional order.”
The Asantehene stated one of the most difficult periods for the institution occurred when legislation was used to alter decisions that traditionally fell within the domain of customary law.
He noted that some individuals who had been duly installed as chiefs under customary law and usage were stripped of official recognition through legislation.
“For instance, laws were enacted to derecognise persons who, under customary law and usage, had been installed as chiefs,” he stated.
He added that, in other instances, laws were enacted to confer recognition on individuals who did not qualify under customary law to occupy traditional stools.
