By Richard Appiah Kubi*
THE HISTORY BEHIND THE NAME KINGMAKER
The word Kingmaker appears to be misnomer and some people argue that it should be Chiefmaker since their functions pertain to chiefs: to me it remains in our vocabulary as a reminder of the pristine dignity of our natural rulers as Kings. The Europeans met them as Kings in their right and in all earlier documents and books referred to the natural rulers as Kings. Hence it is not uncommon across such names as King Amonoo of Anomabu, King Ghartey of Winneba, King Mate Korle and the Ashanti Kings like King Osei Tutu.
In an attempt to whittle down the dignity of our natural rulers to the glorification of the king of England they later referred our natural rulers as Chiefs. In so doing as God would have it they forgot to modify the title of those who had a duty to make our ruler kings and still referred to them as Kingmakers but not Chief makers.
THE DIGNITY OF THE NAME KINGMAKER
I take trouble to make this point because Kingship is a more Honourable and dignified term than Chiefship. It therefore casts more responsibility on our elders when making our rulers to realize that they have been called upon to make King in the real sense so the higher the position the greater the responsibility.
THE MEANING OF KINGMAKER
A Kingmaker may be defined as one who has a right to or takes part in the making or destoolment process of a chief. Kingmakers are stool/skin officials with specific traditional roles to play in the making and unmaking of a chief and in the determination of important matters concerning the stool or skin. For reasons stated above, the decision will be vitiated without their consultations.
WHO IS A CHIEF
Article 277 of the constitution 1992 and Section 57 of the chieftaincy Act, 2008, Act 759 defines a chief as a person who, hailing from the appropriate family and lineage, has been validly elected selected or nominated, and enstooled, enskinned or installed as chief or queenmother in accordance with the relevant customary law and usage.
A chief is defined under statute as an individual or person hailing from appropriate family or lineage, has been validly nominated, elected or selected and enstooled, enskinned or installed as a chief or queenmother in accordance with the relevant customary law and usage.
If chief making processes are nomination, election, selected, installation or enstoolment then all those who perform these functions or specific aspects of them are kingmakers.
We say that those who enstool are those who can destool.
Those who have the customary right to destool chiefs who have a right to bring destoolment charges against them.
Under the Custom we say Odehyee nye dom. A royal does not rebel (against the Chief). One cannot prefer destoolment charges against a chief without rebelling against him.
Section 40 of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008, Act 759 — Right to bring proceedings for deposition
(1) A person is not entitled under this Act to institute proceedings for the deposition of a chief unless that person is entitled to do so under the custom of the area concerned.
(2) A Traditional Council shall not declare a chief liable to be deposed unless in accordance with subsection (3), the Judicial Committee of the Traditional Council has considered the charges against the chief and found the chief liable to be deposed.
(3) Except where deposition is accepted without challenge, and subject to an appeal, a chief is not deposed, unless
(a) deposition charges have been instituted against the chief; and
(b) the appropriate customary practice for deposition in the area concerned have been complied with.
From the foregoing then we deduce that royals who may under statute take part in the chief making process are under custom and section 40(1) precluded from taking part in preferring destoolment charges against the chief.
This derogates from the definition that king makers are those who have right to take part in chief making process. If these very people can prefer destoolment charges against a chief then royals who take part in chief making process cannot be said to be true and proper kingmakers. A Queenmother then does not become a kingmaker and so is an Abakomahene or Adehyehene or any other person who takes part in the chief making process and is a royal to the stool.
- HAILING FROM THE APPROPRIATE FAMILY AND LINEAGE
It must be noted from the definition, the words “. . . who, hailing from the appropriate family and lineage, has been validly nominated, elected or selected. . .” These days, certain traditional areas make people who do not hail from their area chiefs because of their support for the improvement of their area.
It must be noted that, the constitution does not recognize these individuals as chiefs because they do not hail from the appropriate family or lineage. Another problem that arises from the definition is the term “appropriate family” as used in the definition.
“Appropriate” here, to a large extent, means acceptance. It can therefore be inferred to that appropriate family as used in article 277 means the family which is historically accepted, among a group of people, as the family which produces chiefs.
The definition of a chief provides that it is gender-neutral. There are female chiefs who are not queen mothers. Because in the case where there is vacancy, both males and females can compete if and only if it is in accordance with customary law and usage within the Traditional Area in question.
Section 57(5) of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008, A person shall not be considered to be a chief for the performance of a function under this Act or any other enactment, unless that person has been registered for the performance of that function in the National Register of Chiefs and that person’s name has been published in the Chieftaincy Bulletin.
There is an additional requirement that after a chief has been enstooled, his name must be registered in the Register of Chief. However, if that is not done, it does affect the recognition of the Chief under Customary law. But if the registration and gazetting is not done, the chief would not qualify to perform statutory duties as a chief.
Also, Article 275 provides that a person shall not be qualified as a chief if he has been convicted for high treason, treason, high crime or for an offence involving the security of the State, fraud, dishonesty or moral turpitude.
- NOMINATION
Nomination is also referred to as eligibility. Nomination is the most fundamental requirement in the chief making process. This applies of course to areas where nomination is an essential requirement before settling on a person to be considered as a chief.
In this context, nomination simply means the proposal of a person for election or selection as a chief. Essentially, nomination boils down to naming or declaring a person who is considered by the queen mother as the rightful person to be made a chief. Nomination should first take place before all the other processes can follow.
In other words, it should always precede the election, selection, enstoolment and installation of the chief. Nomination provides the foundation on the basis of which the other processes will take
place. If there is no nomination at all, or where the nomination is so flawed or faulty as to be
void, there will be no basis for performing the other four processes. In effect, nomination is sine
qua non to the making of a chief, under normal circumstances. In effect nomination is sine qua
non to the making of a chief, under normal circumstances.
In Republic v. Boateng; Ex Parte Adu Gyamfi, [1972] 1 GLR 317, It was held that the queen
mother has at least three chances to nominate a suitable candidate for the elders to choose from.
Where a Queenmothers candidate is not acceptable to the people, she must find another candidate and meanwhile the stool would remain vacant. The people themselves cannot nominate a person for election. It is clear from the respondent’s own affidavit that he was not nominated by the queenmother or by the royal family. The respondent’s election and installation as a chief were irregular and contrary to custom.
In re Wenchi Stool Affairs: Sramangyedua v. Nketia [2011] 2 SCGLR 1024, the Supreme
Court held that nomination should first take place before all the other processes could follow. In other words, it should always precede the election/selection, enstoolment/enskinment and installation of the chief. The processes after the nomination, would depend on the existence of an appropriate candidate. They could only be performed after nomination. If no person was
nominated, there would be no person to be elected/selected, enstooled/enskinned or installed as a chief. Nomination thus provides the foundation on the basis of which the other processes would take place. If there was no nomination at all, or where the nomination is so flawed or faulty as to be void, there would be no basis for performing the other four processes.
The Court further held that at customary law, there were clearly well-settled procedures to follow in making the nomination.
Nomination or eligibility entails the identification and submission of the name of the contestant observing to be considered as the Chief.
In most Akan areas, nomination comprises the queenmother formally announcing the name or names of the nominated person or persons to the kingmakers
It is the custom among the Akan’s that the Queenmother nominates a candidate when a stool become vacant. This question of nomination has been a source of bred in so many disputes in the Akan speaking areas.
The Queenmothers wrongly assumes that it is their personal right to nominate candidates for the stools and this has brought frictions between some of them and the elders of the stool and even some-times between the rest of the family.
The institution Chieftaincy has always been democratic and therefore it would be unheard of that right would be vested in any single individual.
Now it cannot be gain-said that the stool primarily belongs to the family (the royal family) and when it becomes vacant it is the family who choose a candidate for the family but this candidate is present through the queenmother.
The practice is and should be that it is the principal members of the family who in consultation should decide on a candidate or alternative candidates and present him or them in turn to the kingmakers.
The nomination of queenmother is by chief, while nomination of the chief is by the queenmother. This is the rule in most Akan areas with matrilineal system of inheritance as was explained in the statement from In re Kwabeng Stool; Karikari v Ababio II (supra).
At this stage the Kingmakers bodies are just two blocks i.e. Those who nominate (the family) and those who accept or reject (the elders).
By custom, only accredited queen mothers were authorized to make nominations. The only exception to the rule on nomination by queen mothers was where the king makers take over the making of a chief after the failure or refusal of the queen mother to make the nomination.
Granting that the family does its homework well then, they will screen the candidate as to his lineage, curriculum vitae, as to his life style antecedents’ character and his suitability to represent the family on the stool.
From the above, there will be no occasion for more than on candidate to show their heads publicly as candidates for the same stool because the whole process in the family takes place behind closed doors by the elderly members of the family, the queenmother being only the mouth piece publicly after the decision has been taken by the family of course, the family may respect her views to a great extent but she has no right to override the majority a family meeting i.e. there is no veto power in customary matters except at the risk of over position from which he wrongly assumed that veto power.
At times there was a royal would be at say Tamale. The family would meet and just remember him and send for him through the chief of Tamale to come and be a Chief at say Atebubu in Bono because according to the family he is the most fitted person.
Unhappily, it has become the practice of the Late that even before the family meets, the queenmother has taken her stand either alone or sometimes with the support of some elders that the Chief should be “A” or nobody else.
ELECTION OR SELECTION
Some areas refer to the process of naming the appropriate candidate as selection. Others refers to it as election.
What seems to gain more currency is that selection refers to the stage after the nomination when suitability of the contestant is being considered.
Selection pertains to suitability
The candidate or contestant must be selected by the right kingmakers. Kingmakers are principal members who are office holders and not just elders of the royal family.
They have the right to accept or reject a candidate elected by the Chief or queenmother.
They are therefore responsible for deciding who is best suited to be presented as chief.
It is firmly established that Kingmakers are those who have the sole prerogative to decide on who should be the next chief.
In the Republic v Gbi Traditional Council; Exparte Abaka VII, the occupant of the stool, who abdicated, nominated and selected the applicant as his successor. It was held that his action was incompetent because only kingmakers have the prerogative to select a chief.
The candidate is presented to the elders who also screen the choice of the family presented to the elders who screen the choice of the family presented to them through the Queenmother.
This then becomes the second screening and to my mind a candidate passing through such processes successfully would be an ideal in the society.
Such laid down procedure and principle give no room for ex-convicts or non-royals to creep and climb into the chiefly folds.
The trouble therefore is initiated even before nomination is asked for and family meeting becomes unnecessary or abortive before it is convened. The elders (kingmakers) even sometimes decide on their choice of candidate before hearing from the queenmother careless of whether their favorite is a true and eligible royal or not and despite all legitimate objection from the queenmother (together with the family) the candidate is enstooled by the elders and trouble continues if an action has already commenced or begin if the queenmother takes action at that state.
There is also a latent kingmaker according to custom which we tend to lose sight of. This kingmaker is the overlord chief to whom the new chief swears oath of allegiance.
The statutory definition of a chief ends in accordance with the relevant customary law and usage. This phrase brings in the aspect of taking of oath of allegiance. Before a new chief is allowed to take the oath of allegiance before his overhead chief the overhead chief has a discretion reasonable to refuse or accept him.
Indirectly he thus becomes a kingmaker also and unless this customarily hurdle is jumped the best phrase in the definition is not occupied with and the new chief does not become a chief before his overlord.
There is the need therefore to keep the overload chief whose consent crowns the customary process of enstoolment of the new chief informed so that he may not put Embargo on what has previously been done.
We said before that there is no veto in customary law but there is veto, if reasonably exercised and accepted by the elders who can challenge this exercise.
To avoid this situation there must be a constant communication behind the scene firstly among the family then between the family and the elders and then between the elders and the overlord chief.
If such becomes the same there is no reason why there should be trouble in making new chiefs.
It should however stress that the first and primary thing is for the family to agree among itself especially with the queenmother to present a well screened candidate and for the queenmother especially to realize and accept that nomination of candidate is NOT a personal right.
If the unanimity exists the elders cannot get a candidate of their own from the family and they cannot choose one from outside the family, there will always be peace at Chief making. It is only when there is division in the family that the elders can infiltrate to choose their own candidate and then the overlord chief too come in to allow his preference to swear to him to make things more complicated.
The government has always said that it will not sit down unconcerned to allow Chieftaincy to be taken for a ride even though it will not interfere in chieftaincy affairs.
It is up then to the family, the queenmother, the elders and the overlord chiefs to stop government intervention through their own action a responsibility which lie more on the family unit. Let us not create the causes for government intervention and then turn round to grumble it such intervention.
ENSTOOLMENT, ENSKINMENT OR INSTALLATION
In re Wenchi Stool Affairs: Sramangyedua v. Nketia [2011] 2 SCGLR 1024 the installation
was hasty as the queen mother was not given sufficient time to nominate a candidate. She was
given only 24 hours by the king makers who demanded a candidate.
Section 62(2) of Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759) has a sweeping provision to forestall such
hasty installations. It provides that despite any provision of the is Act, an installation of a chief or
queen mother is not valid unless, at least fourteen days before the date of the installation, public
notice of it in accordance with the custom of the area has been given.
Installation of a Chief is the enskinment or enstoolment depending on whether the chief sits on a skin or stool.
Installation is the general term that is used to describe either enskinment or enstoolment or the situation where the chief does not necessarily sit on stool or a skin.
Until the Chief-elect has been enskinned or enstooled, his installation cannot be described as valid to make him a proper chief.
By custom, installation by enstoolment is conducted by the Oman.
This is because those performing various parts of the custom are said to act on behalf of the Oman and not on their own behalf.
First, the selected chief is initially presented by kingmakers and the elders to the entire populace for their acceptance or rejection.
The second stage is that the stool will next be brought from the stool room and presented.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH RELEVANT CUSTOMARY LAW AND USAGE
Article 11(3) of the Constitution, 1992 provides that for the purposes of this article, “customary
law” means the rules of law, which by custom are applicable to particular communities in
Ghana.
In re Wenchi Stool Affairs: Sramangyedua v. Nketia [2011] 2 SCGLR 1024 supra, Brobbey
JSC stated that: “At customary law, there are clearly well settled procedures to follow in making the nomination. It is not everybody or anybody who can make a nomination. By custom, only
accredited queen mothers are authorized to make nominations. The only exception to the rule on nomination by queen mothers is where the king makers take over the making of a chief after the failure or refusal of the queen mother to make the nomination.”
RESPONSIBILITY OF KINGMAKERS
It is the duty of these elders (Kingmakers) who have a right to destool to advise and assist the Chiefs in his administration and take reciprocal oath for that purpose.
Unfortunately, some of these elders just take the empty oath, sit by only waiting for the day when the chief would do some wrong for destoolment charges to be preferred for him to cash in the subsequent litigation (give instances or amplify this).
There was a customary requisite now almost obsolete that the elders should have warned the chief once or twice against a behavior complained against the reposted that conduct to the queenmother and that if the chief invited on that sort of behavior, he become liable for destoolment.
It was reviewed in E.I. 308 to the effect that the complaint should be made to an elder for preliminary investigation before presentation to the court.
This provision fell with the repeal of Act. 81. it is suggested such provision is needed in the law to limit the spate of destoolment cases or else those elders who condone and connive at the misdeeds of chiefs should fall together with the chief.
It will also be helpful for codification of customary offences which can destool chiefs automatically and for which chiefs can be warned. Some such proposals are before Government and we eagerly await its reaction.
Whether there is law as to warning of chiefs or not it is still the duty of the elders to keep an eye on the chief and keeps from advised and warned against his wrongful behavior before an action is taken against him. Such evidence will add weight to the quilt of the chief. To that extent there will also be the need for another elder to hear of such advice or warning as corroborative evidence.
To me, it is a great disservice to chieftaincy who just sits down as watch dog on the actions of a chief waiting for opportunity to prepare destoolment charges against him. Remember the chief was confined for only some few days and the custom forced down his throat within that time. Is such time sufficient for him to assimilate the customs.
Yet the chiefs or some of them will not accept this and still claim and boast that having gone under one or two instance course the custom is in their bosom
“Enne yen nne” when the alone have been complied with and the elders feel that there is the need to remove the chief let the elders come together and if they feel that the stool is being brought into disrepute by the behavior of the occupant who also refused to see to reason with the elders then for goodness let the preservation of the dignity of the stool and the institution he a guide light to let all elders or majority of them to prefer destoolment charges against the chief.
There should be no lukewarm attitude to this due to other consideration apart from the saving and preservation of the dignity of the institution.
Failing this we thus ridicule the institution by referring to it as sacred while we do not regard and try to preserve it as such.
The government as a statutory kingmaker becomes colourless when the customary aspect is well handled and controlled.
DESTOOLMENT PROCESS
We have noticed that not all persons who take part in enstoolment processes are kingmakers. i.e. the Queenmothers, Abatamfo and Abakomahene.
The statutes become clearer for it does not say that it is kingmakers who can bring destoolment charges against a chief but rather those who are entitled so to do under customary law. We are not therefore entirely correct when we say that it is those who enstool who can destool. Rather it is those who have a right to destool who can destool, and those include some of those who enstool – the elders.
CHIEFTAINCY (DESTOOLMENT PROCEEDINGS) REGULATIONS 1963
In exercise of the powers conferred on the minister section 67 of the Chieftaincy Act,1961 (Act 81) theses Regulations are made this 23rd day of October, 1963.
- (1) Every Traditional Council shall for its area make and forward to the Minister a list of the names and any customary posts or title of all persons who are entitled by custom to give final approval to the destoolment of a Chief.
(2) for the purpose of these Regulations, the expression ‘Elders’ means a person whose name appears on the list forwarded to the Minister under the proceedings sub-regulations.
- A claim or complaint against a Chief may be lodged with an elders of the stool concerned who shall, within fourteen days of the lodging, summon all the other elders concerned to hear the claim or complaint.
- At the meeting of the elders concerned,
- The elders summoning the meeting shall be the Chairman;
- The quorum shall be half the number of the elders concerned;
- Decisions shall be by a simple majority of elders present;
- The chairman shall have an additional or casting vote in the event of an equality of votes.
- (1). The meeting may dismiss the claim or complaint summarily but where the meeting decides that a prima facie case has been made out against the Chief it shall forward a copy of the claim or complaint together with the decision thereon to the Traditional Council and the elders shall have the right, to the exclusion of any other person, to appear before the Traditional Council in the exercise of its jurisdiction under section 15 of the Act.
(2). Where the elders with whom a claim or complaint is lodged fails to obtain quorum at the meeting called, he shall refer the complaint to the Traditional Council for hearing.
- These Regulations shall be deemed to have come into operation at the same time as the Chieftaincy (Amendment) Act, 1963 (Act 185).
It is clear from the reading of the above Regulations that Elders/Kingmakers of a particular stool must go through certain processes before the jurisdiction of the Traditional and Houses of Chiefs Judicial Committee is properly evoked under Section 27 and 28 of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008.
STATUTES
- The Constitution of Ghana, 1992.
- The Chieftaincy Act, 1961
- The Chieftaincy Act, 2008, Act 957
- Chieftaincy (Destoolment Proceedings) Regulations 1963.
CASES CITED
- Republic v. Boateng; Ex Parte Adu Gyamfi, [1972] 1 GLR 317
- re Kwabeng Stool; Karikari v Ababio II
- re Wenchi Stool Affairs: Sramangyedua v. Nketia [2011] 2 SCGLR 1024
- Republic v Gbi Traditional Council; Exparte Abaka VII.
*Richard Appiah Kubi serves as the Senior Registrar at the House of Chiefs within the Atebubu Traditional Council in Atebubu. He is a candidate for a Doctor of Business Administration and holds several impressive academic qualifications, including an MPhil in Human Resource Management, an MBA in Human Resource Management, a Bachelor of Laws (LLB), a Bachelor of Science in Administration with a focus on Accounting, and a Bachelor of Arts in Theology.
