REPUBLIC vs. ASOKORE TRADITIONAL COUNCIL; EX PARTE TIWAA [1975]DLCA426

Date	1975-11-10
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1975]DLCA426

APALOO J.A

SOWAH J.A

FRANCOIS J.A.

AGYEPONG FOR THE APPELLANTS.

JANTUAH FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1975]DLCA426
																																						<div class="restriction-wrapper">
														<div class="container-lg">
															<div class="row">
																<div class="col-md-12 restricted-content">
																	<div class="restricted-content-img-wrapper">
																		<div class="lock-icon bounce-7">
																			<img class=""
																				src="https://www.dennislawgh.com/dl-assets/dl-images/lock-content.png"
																				alt="Subscription based content">
																		</div>
																	</div>
																	 
																		<a href="https://www.dennislawgh.com/login"
																		class="btn btn-primary btn-lg"
																		style="font-family: 'open sans'; text-transform: capitalize; border-radius: 8px"> 
																		Login to Read Full Case </a>
																	 
																	
																</div>
															</div>
														</div>
													</div>
													<main id="main" class="content" style="min-height: 60rem" >REPUBLIC <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ASOKORE TRADITIONAL COUNCIL; EX PARTE TIWAA<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[COURT
OF APPEAL, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1976] 2 GLR 231<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

DATE:
10 NOVEMBER 1975.<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

AGYEPONG FOR THE APPELLANTS.<o:p></o:p>

</div>CORAM:
<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 0in 0in">

APALOO, SOWAH AND FRANCOIS JJ.A.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF APALOO J.<o:p></o:p>Until 9
May 1974, the respondent, Nana Fobiri Tiwaa, was the unquestioned queenmother
of Asokore in the Asokore Traditional Area of Ashanti. She said, and the
learned judge agreed, that she still is. The appellants, the traditional
council, say, she no longer is and that she was removed from that office on 9
May 1974. Since that date, a new queenmother has been enstooled and is duly
recognised as such by the government. Indeed the government also recognised the
fact of the respondent’s destoolment. The respondent claimed that her purported
removal amounted to nought because not only did it transgress custom but
offended against enacted law and the rules of natural justice. She asked the
High Court to quash her so-called removal on these grounds. That court did so
to provoke the present appeal.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Now the
facts. The respondent was, on a date which the evidence did not disclose,
nominated, elected and installed the queenmother of Asokore. While she occupied
the female stool, Nana Yaw Gyimah II sat on the Asokore paramount stool and
both reigned contemporaneously for a time. Some time in May 1974 or possibly
earlier, the paramount chief had grounds to be dissatisfied with his
queenmother. He suspected her of acts of disloyalty. He said in an affidavit
that she, the Adontehene and some “young men” were collaborating to undermine
the lawful authority of the Asokore Traditional Council. Such conduct he swore,
was forbidden by a resolution of the Ashanti Confederacy Council of February
1936, and the sanction for infringement of such resolution, was destoolment. It
is clear that the Omanhene desired the respondent’s removal from office.<o:p></o:p>At the
behest of the paramount chief, a meeting of the traditional council was
scheduled to be held at his palace on Tuesday 7 May. Two messengers were sent
to invite the respondent to this meeting. Nothing was told the messengers as to
why she was summoned to the meeting. When they saw the respondent, she excused
herself on the ground that she was then undergoing her monthly period and she
could not attend the meeting on Tuesday. It was a taboo for a female to call at
the palace in that condition. She thought she would be well enough to attend
the following day and sent word to that effect to the Omanhene. That day did
not suit the latter. He would himself be away to Kumasi. So the messengers were
sent back to ask the queenmother to attend the meeting at 2 p.m. on Thursday 9
May 1974. Again no word was breathed to her of the object of the meeting or why
her presence was desired. She was not able to attend the meeting on Thursday.
Nevertheless, it took place under the presidency of the Omanhene. The
proceedings of that meeting were exhibited in one of the many applications made
to the court on this case and the agenda of that meeting, curious as it seems,
was “The insubordination of Nana Fobiri Tiwaa II, queenmother of Asokore.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>That
statutory body then proceeded to destool the queenmother. The summons to her
was to attend a meeting of the traditional council. If her failure to attend
constituted an offence, she sinned against that council. But the ground
proffered for her destoolment was her failure to attend the call of the
Omanhene. Indeed her destoolment was pronounced by that individual. In his
capacity as President of the Asokore Traditional Council, the Omanhene said the
queenmother’s failure to attend the meeting was deliberate. He therefore
intoned the fateful words: “I therefore declare Nana Fobiri Tiwaa II,
Queenmother of Asokore destooled.” The proceedings then ended with a note of
the ritual that was performed to seal the respondent’s fate as follows: “A
sheep was slaughtered in conformity with Ashanti native custom.”<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Our
social set-up is such that the installation of a person as queenmother could
only have originated by nomination of her by her family. The present respondent
belongs to the Ekuona family. That family was not apparently apprised of any
wrong-doing of the queenmother much less of any steps taken to destool her.
Opanin Kwasi Sarpong who claimed to be the head of the respondent’s family,
heard of the latter’s destoolment in the street. He was informed of this event
by the Omanhene who said he destooled her because of her failure to answer his
call. It would have been out of the ordinary if the queenmother had taken all
this lying down. She took a number of steps, most of them procedurally faulty,
to have her so-called destoolment annulled. In the result, she was successful.
On 14 J</main>