EYAW II vs. ABANKWA AND OTHERS [1988]DLSC736

Date	1988-03-30
Suit No.
Citation No.	[1988]DLSC736

ADADE JSC

TAYLOR JSC

FRANCOIS JSC

ABBAN JSC

AMUA-SEKYI J.S.C.

ANTHONY MMIEH (WITH HIM OPPONG) FOR THE APPELLANT.

PETER ADJETEY (WITH HIM OBENG MANU) FOR THE RESPONDENT.

[1988]DLSC736
																																						<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" >EYAW II <o:p></o:p>vs. <o:p></o:p>ABANKWA AND OTHERS <o:p></o:p>[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p>[1987-88] 2 GLR 481<o:p></o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

DATE
30 MARCH 1988<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">

ANTHONY MMIEH (WITH HIM OPPONG) FOR THE APPELLANT.
<o:p></o:p>

PETER ADJETEY (WITH HIM OBENG MANU) FOR THE
RESPONDENT.<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">

ADADE, TAYLOR, FRANCOIS, ABBAN AND
AMUA-SEKYI JJ.S.C.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>JUDGMENT OF FRANCOIS J.S.C.<o:p></o:p>This
appeal affects the destiny of the paramount chief of Techiman, Nana Kwakye
Ameyaw II, and his continued occupation of the Techiman stool. His reign
spanning a period of over twenty years has, towards the twilight of his life,
seen a souring of relationship with his wing chiefs and elders culminating in
the filing of 44 charges against him seeking his destoolment. The number of
charges and the number of chiefs preferring them, is a true measure of the quality
of disaffection felt for the appellant by his people in that unhappy
traditional area. The conventional wisdom is that where the stage is reached
where erstwhile supporters make an about turn and loyalty has plummeted to the
lowest depths, it is time to recognize that abdication remains the only viable
option. Indeed that was the counsel that the appellant received from his own
family head, the pillar from whom he derived a financial commitment of support.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The
appellant disdained the advice, thus provoking this long drawn out contest with
his people. It began with an investigation of the 44 charges by the judicial
committee of the Brong-Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs. Clearly some of the
charges were trumped up and only disclosed a resolve to get rid of the
appellant by every conceivable means. The regional house however exonerated the
appellant of all but six of the charges, and expressed itself in a rider that
re-echoed Portia in The Merchant of Venice that no blood should be spilt in
exacting the penalty. It was a clear call for conciliation. The opportunity was
missed. The appellant pursued the matter before the National House of Chiefs,
where he succeeded in reducing the total tally of findings against him to five.<o:p></o:p>The
appellant appeals to this court, first challenging the soundness of the
findings of the confirmation of them by the national house, and secondly,
questioning the constitutional propriety of the role, played by the queenmother
in her participation in the preparation of destoolment charges.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>The five
charges which will be considered briefly, are numbered 2, 7, 14, 20 and 31.
Although the record suggests a hidden charge number 12 which upbraided the
appellant for reneging on an agreement not to be part of the Nkoranza Local
Council, none of the parties has addressed himself to this charge either at the
National House of Chiefs or in this court. The national house itself did not
find it deserving of comment. That charge will consequently be consigned to the
limbo of forgotten things.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Now to
the charges. Charge 2 is the breach of a taboo in crossing the Takyia River.
The appellant admitted driving along a bridge that spans the river. He was not
blindfolded as custom demanded. He admitted that. Obviously the incongruity of
making any assertions relating to the control of a vehicle over a bridge
blindfolded must have dawned on him. Consequently he explained that the bridge
with its rank growth of vegetation at the sides would obscure the view of the
river, and in any case the custom was outmoded and obsolete. But the machinery
for declaring customs obsolete existed in the traditional council of which the
appellant was head. There had been no pretence of even invoking that machinery.
The taboo subsisted and the only possible conclusion was that the appellant was
condemned by his own admissions.<o:p></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>Charge 7
deals with the appellant’s amorous relationship with a young girl in the
household, betrothed to a youth for whom she bore a child. The appellant’s
subsequent cohabitation with this girl, resulting in an issue, was roundly
condemned by both traditional tribunals as conduct unbecoming in a chief, and
seriously undermining the prestige of the stool. It is hard to disagree. As
Rattray puts it in Ashanti Law and Constitution at p. 320 “Noblesse oblige
should be a Chief’s motto, or as the Ashanti say, Ohene doe ncho ni, te se
abeko (‘A Chief should deport himself like the (beautiful) Abeko bird’).”
Instances of conduct of the kind that is visited with the sanction of
destoolment are furnished on the same page.<o:p></o:p>