[2011]DLSC4108 • July 20, 2011 • Supreme Court •
NANA ADJEI AMPOFO vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS
The plaintiff, a lawyer and former Paramount Chief and member of the National House of Chiefs, challenged specific provisions of section 63 of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759), particularly subsection (d), which criminalizes deliberate refusal to honor a call from a chief to attend to an issue. The plaintiff contended that these provisions infringe on constitutional rights, including freedom of movement and liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the 1992 Constitution, and that the provisions are vague and overbroad. The defendants, the Attorney-General and the President of the National House of Chiefs, defended the provisions as necessary to uphold the authority and traditional functions of chiefs.
read moreDR. DATE-BAH JSC: All members of this Court are agreed on the following judgment. Chieftaincy is a revered and constitutionally entrenched institution in Ghana. The reach of chiefs extends even beyond the formal machinery of the Ghanaian State. Some of the rural settlements or communities without a permanent local resident representative of the Ghanaian State will, almost inevitably, have a chiefly leadership. The social value of the institution of chieftaincy is thus given widespread recognition by the Ghanaian public. Nevertheless the rights of even chiefs are subject to the 1992 Constitution. Indeed, as Coussey JA percipiently observed in Republic v Techiman Traditional Council, Ex parte Tutu [1982-83] GLR 996 at 999: “Chieftaincy, since the British colonial administration, has been governed by statute and this has continued since the independence of Ghana in 1957.” Thus, the institution of chieftaincy, although it has evolved in accordance with customary law, has been ...