Kingmakers

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