NANA ADJEI AMPOFO vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS [2011]DLSC4108

NANA ADJEI AMPOFO vs. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL HOU... [2011]DLSC4108

Date	2011-07-20
Suit No.	WRIT SUIT NO. J1/8/2007
Citation No.	[2011]DLSC4108

DR. DATE-BAH JSC (PRESIDING)

ANSAH JSC

ADINYIRA JSC

OWUSU JSC

DOTSE JSC

BONNIE JSC

ARYEETEY JSC

GBADEGBE JSC

A.BAMFO JSC.

MRS. AMA BANFUL WITH CECIL ADADEVOH SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY WITH MISS HELARA FRENCH ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE 1ST DEFENDANT.

PLAINTIFF APPEARS IN PERSON

MR. AYIKOI OTOO FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT

[2011]DLSC4108
																																						<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" >NANA ADJEI AMPOFO<o:p></o:p>vs.<o:p></o:p>THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND
THE PRESIDENT OF THE NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS<o:p></o:p>&nbsp;[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<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">

WRIT SUIT NO. J1/8/2007&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;DATE: 20TH JULY, 2011<o:p></o:p>

</div>COUNSEL:&nbsp;&nbsp; <o:p></o:p>MRS. AMA BANFUL WITH CECIL
ADADEVOH, SENIOR STATE ATTORNEY&nbsp; WITH
MISS HELARA FRENCH, ASSISTANT STATE ATTORNEY FOR THE&nbsp; 1ST DEFENDANT.<o:p></o:p>PLAINTIFF APPEARS IN
PERSON<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">

MR.
AYIKOI OTOO FOR THE 2ND DEFENDANT<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 1.0pt 0in">

DR. DATE-BAH JSC (PRESIDING), ANSAH
JSC, ADINYIRA JSC, OWUSU JSC, DOTSE JSC, BONNIE JSC, ARYEETEY JSC, GBADEGBE
JSC, AND A.BAMFO JSC.<o:p></o:p>

</div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt;
padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in">

JUDGMENT <o:p></o:p>

</div>DR. DATE-BAH JSC:<o:p></o:p>All members of this Court
are agreed on the following judgment.&nbsp; Chieftaincy
is a revered and constitutionally entrenched institution in Ghana.&nbsp; The reach of chiefs extends even beyond the
formal machinery of the Ghanaian State.&nbsp;
Some of the rural settlements or communities without a permanent local resident
representative of the Ghanaian State will, almost inevitably, have a chiefly
leadership.&nbsp; The social value of the
institution of chieftaincy is thus given widespread recognition by the Ghanaian
public.&nbsp; Nevertheless the rights of even
chiefs are subject to the 1992 Constitution.&nbsp;
Indeed, as Coussey JA percipiently observed in Republic v Techiman Traditional Council, Ex parte Tutu [1982-83]
GLR 996 at 999:<o:p></o:p>“Chieftaincy, since the British colonial
administration, has been governed by statute and this has continued since the
independence of Ghana in 1957.”<o:p></o:p>Thus,
the institution of chieftaincy, although it has evolved in accordance with
customary law, has been subjected to regulation by statute since the advent of
British colonialism in this jurisdiction.&nbsp;
This remains true even now, subject to the qualification that article
270 of the 1992 Constitution limits the extent of statutory intervention
permitted in relation to the institution of chieftaincy.&nbsp; This Article 270 provides as follows:<o:p></o:p>“270.<o:p></o:p>(1)
The institution of chieftaincy, together with its traditional councils as
established by customary law and usage, is hereby guaranteed.<o:p></o:p>(2)
Parliament shall have no power to enact any law which-<o:p></o:p>(a)
confers on any person or authority the right to accord or withdraw recognition
to or from a chief for any purpose whatsoever; or <o:p></o:p>(b)
in any way detracts or derogates from the honour and dignity of the institution
of chieftaincy. <o:p></o:p>(3)
Nothing in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be
inconsistent with, or in contravention of, clause (1) or (2) of this article if
the law makes provision for- <o:p></o:p>(a)
the determination, in accordance with the appropriate customary law and usage,
by a traditional council, a Regional House of Chiefs or a Chieftaincy Committee
of any of them, of the validity of the nomination, election, selection,
installation or deposition of a person as a chief;<o:p></o:p>(b)
a traditional council or a Regional House of Chiefs or the National House of
Chiefs to establish and operate a procedure for the registration of chiefs and
the public notification in the Gazette or otherwise of the status of persons as
chiefs in Ghana.”<o:p></o:p>In this present suit, the
plaintiff wishes this Court to clarify the extent of certain rights and
obligations of chiefs enacted by the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759) and to
determine whether those rights and obligations as currently&nbsp; formulated in that statute are
constitutional.&nbsp; The case accordingly
calls for a careful evaluation of the challenged rights and obligations against
certain entrenched constitutional freedoms and norms contained in the 1992
Constitution.<o:p></o:p>