In an article on the above-mentioned topic published in Myjoyonline on the 10th of May 2018, one Dr. Osei-Tutu Darkwa sought to attack my position on the issue whether or not the Asantehene is a King within the terms of the 1992 Constitution.
In this rejoinder, I hold no brief for the names or the political parties he mentioned in his article. This reaction is to the extent that it affects me, Abdul Malik Kweku Baako. Description of me and my submission on Peace Fm’s Kokroko program on May 9, 2018 as arrogant, impudent and ignorant are politely ignored for good reason. We need to stay focused on the substantive issue as to whether or not we have “Kings” in Ghana today in the face of the fundamental law of the land (The 1992 Constitution), The Chieftaincy Act (Act 759) and any other relevant statute relative to the noble institution of Chieftaincy!
My position is simply this: In so far that the 1992 Constitution, as well as the modern laws of Ghana, do not directly or indirectly mention any chief as a King, there can be no chief in Ghana today who can legally be described as a King. My reasons are as follows:
* i. No provision in the current laws of Ghana defines “a chief” as a king. The current laws include the Chieftaincy Act, 1971, (Ac t370), s. 48; the 1979 Constitution, art 181; The Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759), s 57(1); and 1992 Constitution, art 277.
* ii. When a person is to be installed as a chief, the law requires that he is installed as a chief or queen mother but never as “a king.” This is clearly set out in art 277 and all the laws which determine when a person is legally made a chief
* iii. I have sought legal advice and been informed that the rules on interpretation stipulate that it is not right to import words into a statute in seeking to interpret it if the statute is clear on its face and excludes the imported provision.
* iv. Since none of the laws in our recent years and current times allow a chief to be referred to as a king, it is obvious that the word “king” is not intended to be part of our vocabulary when describing who a chief is. If the Legislature or the framers of the Constitution wanted the word “king” to be used to describe chiefs, what prevented them from saying so expressly? My view is that the word “king” does not appear in the laws or the 1992 Constitution because the Legislature and the framers of the Constitution did not intend that (king) to be used to describe a chief.
* v.A “king” presides over an empire or a kingdom. Where is the kingdom or empire over which the “king” of modern times may be said to preside?
* vi. There are certain attributes one has to possess or customs one has to perform in order for him to be acknowledged as a king. What are the attributes exhibited by the chiefs of today or customs of kings performed by the chiefs of today which qualify them to be described as kings if the good writer is invited to point to these attributes or customs of kings or customs performed by any chief in modern Ghana for which he may be called a king instead of just a chief.
* vii. There is no doubt that in the past Ghana had kings and kingdoms. Typical instances were the Nayire of the Mamprusi kingdom and the Asantehene of the Ashanti Kingdom. When kings are referred in the past or in the historical context, that is in order and no one will question that. That is part of history. But when modern chiefs are referred to, it will be legally wrong to describe a chief in Ghana today as a king.
* viii. Out of respect for our kings of the past, they may be referred to as kings. But that does not make them kings in the modern context in any legal sense.
* ix. In Ghana today, people give birth to their children and name them as Nii, Ohene, Chief, Nana, Naaba, Kuoro, Togbe, Narh. These are appellations given to chiefs. Does the fact that such children are given such appellations make them chiefs?
* x. I concede that any group of people may choose to call their chief by any name they prefer. But in the legal sense, the chief must satisfy the conditions or requirements laid down by the law before the legal status of the particular chief can be attached to him. For instance, a paramount chief must satisfy the conditions laid down in the Constitution before a chief will qualify to be called a paramount chief. What are the conditions to be satisfied before a person will qualify to be called a king? There is none in any law or the Constitution because the law does not recognize that position and that is why it does not take the trouble to lay down any conditions to be satisfied.
* xi. The reference to the meaning of customary law relied on by the writer is a question of interpretation. Until the courts come out with the interpretation or implication that he has relied on, he is as much entitled to his interpretation as I am entitled to my interpretation.
* xii. The difference between the two of us is that I rely on the law as it is on the face of it but he relies on his own interpretation of the law as he deduces from his understanding of the law. I rely on the law as it is: He relies on the law as it ought to be by his interpretation. Which one is more reliable?
* xiii. I still maintain that on the law as it stands or on its face, there is no king in Ghana today.
In conclusion, I maintain that I am right and the writer is wrong for the reason that by Article 1(2) of the 1992 Constitution, any law or conduct which is inconsistent with the Constitution is void to the extent of the inconsistency. In so far that the Constitution contains no provision on the term "king", in so far that the Constitution does not include "king" in its definition of who a chief is, it is inconsistent to invoke "king" within the meaning of "a chief" as provided in the Constitution. The argument of the writer is therefore void and wrong to the extent of the inconsistency!
I rest my case.
Source: Abdul Malik Kweku Baako (Editor In Chief of The New Crusading GUIDE At Large)
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Peacefmonline.com. Peacefmonline.com accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content. Please report any inappropriate content to us, and we will evaluate it as a matter of priority. |
I sometimes wonder the sort of people we are and how inferior we tend to consider ourselves in the detriment of our progress socially,economically,and in cultural context as a people.Let me put it on record that Ashantis are not tribalistic as been always alleged out there.We shd rather speak on the issue and it's content.It is only in manhyia palace that other tribes community chiefs are been recognized any time the asantehene sits to ponder over the development agenda, this is not done in any of the regions in Ghana,etc etc. Meaning the Ashantis harmoniously co-exist with their brothers and sisters from far and near,l don't know whether people do speak out of jealousy or just want to stupidly say something to defame them. Let's all try to name and shame people who would like to throw dust into our eyes for their selfish and destructive instinct to incite other tribes against the Ashantis,whom God had blessed no one can curse.The Ashantis are peace makers and love all manner of people. Thanks.
i think kweku baako was disrespectful that day,and is normal of any human being, no matter how wise or smart that you are, you sometimes act stupidly just to let you know you are human. my question if Asantehene was his father or uncle would he had said what he said? if baako's father was alive and he baako has done something wrong and his father asked him to kneel down will he or he will not? As an African child what is so strange about kneeling before an elderly person, it happens every day in our lives. And what was all these ***barred word*** about constitution he was talking about. does kneeling or bowing down also written in the constitution of Ghana? Black Mentality, full of inferiority complex,how can a man who thinks he is that bold and courageous add to his name another because he has joined a new religion? clear inferiority complex. Baako i love you but that day you spoke disrespectfully and stupidly. thank you
WHAT THE WHITEMAN CALLS KING IN THEIR LANGUAGE IS SAME AS WHAT WE CALL ASANTEHENE,IT IS SIMPLE,THE ASANTEHENE IS NOT A PARAMOUNT CHIEF BUT THE HEAD OF ALL THE PARAMOUNT CHIEFS IN ASHANTI.THUS IF YOU LIKE THE CHIEF OF ALL PARAMOUNT CHIEFS IN ASHANTI.HE IS THE SAME AS WHAT THE WHITE PEOPLE CALL A KING.DO YOU NEED A CONSTITUTION TO UNDERSTAND THIS.KING GEORGE,QUEEN ELIZABETH 1 ALL RECOGNIZED THE ASANTEHENE AS A KING,AND YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CONSTITUTION.YOU WILL NOT BOW OR KNEELTO ASANTEHENE,BUTYOU MAY OR KNEEL TO KWAME NKRUMAH I HAVE NO PROPLEM,BUT I WILL NOT COME AND ANNOUNCE TO THE WQHOLE WORLD THAT I WILL NOT BOW SAY NKRUMAH.BOWING OR KNEELING,PROSTRATION ARE ALL WAYS OF SHOWING RESPECT.IF SOME PEOPLE CHOOSE TO KNEELTHAT IS THEIR CHOICE.OBAMA BOWED TO A SAUDI KING.GO TO NIGERIA.THE COMMONWEALTH SECRETARY GENERAL PROSTRATED TO OBBASANGO,IT IS ALL ABOUT CULTURE.
OUR CONSTITUTION HAS NOTHING ON FOUNDER OF THE NATION BUT KWAKU AND HIS PEOPLE SAY KWAME NKRUMAH IS THE FOUNDER OF GHANA,WHEN HE CAME HERE WHEN THE JOB HAD ALREADY BEEN DONE AND ORGANISED JUST ONE DEMONSTRATION. OUR TRADITIONS WERE THERE BEFORE THE CONSTITUTION,BEFORE GHANA, WAS ASHANTI,AND ALSO DAGOMBA,GA,ETC, WE DO NOT NEED ANY CONSTITUTION TO DEFINE WHO IS A KING,BEFORE THE WHITE MAN WE HAD OUR KINGS,AND THEY REMAIN AS KINGS FOR EVER AND EVER
WELL SAID KWEKU. WHEN I READ THE REJOINER YOU REFERRED TO, I REALISED THE ARGUMENTS MADE IN THERE WERE VERY WEAK AND LACKED INTELLECTUAL CONTENT. ALTHOUGH ACT 759, GAVE CERTAIN EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES TO THE ASANTEHENE IN THE ASHANTI REGION, THE ACT DOES NOT RECOGNISE ANY KINDGOM ANYWHERE IN GHANA. ITS JUST LIKE A RICH MAN CALLING HIS WATCHMAN A SECURITY GUARD. I FIND IT VERY INTERESTING WHEN SOME PEOPLE GO AS FAR AS REFERRING TO THE ASANTEHENE AS KING OF GHANA!!!!
Indeed, Papa Yaw has made a good argument and we better stop this hypocritical attitude of seeking a blessing from a self-centered man, walking in the shadows of his former majestic predecessors. Who by their deeds deserved to be accorded the title the King of the Ashantis.
Massa; A VERY GOOD POINT !!!!! ; how can an ordinary man-Okonmfo Anokye enstool somebody as a paramount Chief and then suddenly the Chief we are told is a KING !!!!!!; these Ashantis tribalistic idiotic fulls should stop twisting history; it is just like what Nana Addo is attempting to peddle in Ghana today that his uncle JB Danquah contributed soly to all the great works to attain independence in Ghana and even contributed soly to the building of University of Ghana ; the same is being peddled by some of these tribalistic Ashantis attempting to create this mytical position for the Ashantihene to be accorded the overall King over Chiefs in Ghana ; the fact is that the Ashantehene is just a Chief and a very poor Chief ; how many chiefs have you heard in Ghana selling their ancestral ornaments ; money laundering ; involved in politics ; buying properties abroad whilst his ancestral kumasi s..mells with gabage ; whilst he adorns himself with gold to full his people .
HOW CAN A CHIEF ENSTOOLED BY OKOMFO ANOKYE BE CALLED A KING.ASANTES DON'T KNOW HISTORY.
KWAKU BAAKO IS TOTALLY WRONG.HE MUST READ THE CHIEFTANCY ACT AND HE WILL SEE THAT THE ASANTEHENE WAS MANIFESTLY SET APART FROM OTHER CHIEFS.THE ASANTEHENE IS NEVER REFERRED TO IN THE ACT AS A CHIEF BUT RATHER AS A KING IE GOING BY THE LITERAL TRANSLATION OF ASANTEHENE. THANKS
Some pple don't know what they are talking abt. It's like a university student arguing with primary school student. It's just a waste of time. Just read what nana K wrote and compare with Papa Yaw.