Peeping at Asantehemaa’s court
Culture identifies one people from another. It is imperative for all to understand and appreciate the culture of others. When we appreciate the values of other cultures, we would respect and honour practices associated with people. But there are many of us who have not taken the trouble to learn about our own cultures and describe them as primitive or enlightening depending on our evaluation of cultural practices from European perspectives.
Advertisement
A few years back, I had a shock when an assignment given to a junior high school student turned into a nightmare. A number of friends I considered to be knowledgeable in the Twi language could not tell the names of the months of the year. Finally, after consulting about five people, I was able to piece together the months of the year in Twi.
Recently I had the opportunity to sit through a hearing at the Asantehemaa’s Court at the Manhyia Palace. It was a sobering moment of learning. There were some things that gave me great joy, but there were others that if I am given the opportunity, I would want to discuss with Nananom such that if they could improve upon certain practices and procedures, the potency of the court will be greatly enhanced. For instance, there was no respect for time, as the court, which was supposed to start at 9 a.m, finally started well after 11a.m, with parties sitting there frustrated but unable to complain. We need to keep to time.
My greatest joy was the confidence reposed in the process by the people. On the day that I observed the proceedings, the issues ranged from inheritance through debt, land litigation to the invocation of curses. Our people have faith in the chieftaincy institution. I admired the way complainants stated their cases, after which the accused were made to interrogate them. Thereafter, the defendants also stated their case and answered questions from the complainants before the panel members intervened to ask questions to come to a better understanding of the issues.
From the lines of questioning and the responses, one could predict where the decisions would go. In some of the cases, the decisions were unanimous but in others there were minority positions. Whatever the case, the courtiers were ready to spray the victor with powder.
Within a few hours, a number of cases were firmly determined. Some of the cases, if they had been brought before the law courts, could have seen many adjournments but at the Asantehemaa’s Court, these were decided within hours or minutes.
One observation that might demand answers from Nananom is why there were more males than females when the Court is that of the Asantehemaa but not the Asantehene? Another observation was the fact that some of the panel members appeared to be antagonistic instead of being objective or neutral. There were a few leading questions. The good thing, however, was that at the end of the day, each party was given a hearing and that good sense prevailed. Indeed, for the five cases that were decided that day, I saw logic in each of the decisions. The only thing that I thought deserved to be reviewed is the need to refund fully to the innocent party whatever payments were made to indicate willingness for the matter to be settled by the court. My feeling was that if the complainant was not charged with the full cost of the process, innocent persons could be brought before the court and made to pay money that should not be a cost to them. This is particularly true where the panel establishes clearly that the complaint was actuated by malice or hatred.
Parties had to pay for every witness who gave a testimony. Here again, my thinking is that at the end of the day, the losing party must be made to pay for such cost not the victorious party. It might be in exceptional cases where a party has brought a witness who just appears to perpetuate a lie that the one who called the witness must be made to pay for bringing a false witness. It should even be possible for such witnesses to be charged for perjury as they swear by the thumb of the Asantehemaa to be truthful about their testimonies.
I am open for an invitation to share my thoughts on the process because I felt some pride even though I was worried about bad time management and that some of the panel members did not show respect to those who appeared before them. But what I saw proved the resilience of chieftaincy as a cherished institution.
