Don’t pass Amendment Bill on Chieftaincy:Lawyer urges Parliament
An Accra-based legal practitioner, Nana Adjei Ampofo, has called on Parliament to not pass the draft Amendment Bill on Chieftaincy into law because it will be unconstitutional.
Advertisement
The new bill currently under consideration by Parliament would allow for the prosecution of subjects who refuse to respond to summons of their chiefs.
But Nana Ampofo, an ex-Omanhene of the Goaso Traditional Area in the Brong Ahafo Region, believes the passage of the bill will give discriminatory powers to chiefs and confer unruly police and judicial powers on them.
Wrong method
Speaking to the Daily Graphic in Accra, Nana Ampofo said the method being used by Parliament to protect the chieftaincy institution was wrong and unconstitutional, and should not be encouraged, and added that he would go to the Supreme Court to challenge it if passed.
"The amendment will give a dangerous weapon to all category of chiefs some of whom would use the power given them discriminatingly, oppressively and dangerously," he said.
He could not fathom why such a wide and dangerous power should be given to all categories of chiefs, including village chiefs and herdsmen.
"This amendment bill is vague and overboard. It is an unruly horse and nobody can control it," he said.
Nana Ampofo argued that the bill would be worse than the previous constitutional provision, which he succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to strike out on grounds of unconstitutionality.
Previous action
On July 20, 2011, the Supreme Court struck out section 63 (d) of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 Act 759, under which deliberate refusal to honour a call from a chief to attend to an issue was an offence.
Nana Ampofo had filed a writ at the highest court of the land challenging the constitutionality of the provision of the Act and secured judgment in his favour.
That sub-section stated that a person who “deliberately refuses to honour a call from a chief to attend to an issue commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than two hundred penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not more than three months or both”.
At an emergency meeting held by the National House of Chiefs in Kumasi on the ruling, the House decided to lobby the Cabinet and Parliament in order for a Bill to be passed which would restore the powers and dignity of the chiefs.
The President of the National House of Chiefs, Naa Professor John S. Nabila, said at that meeting that following the Supreme Court’s ruling, some people started refusing to attend to chiefs' calls, which could lead to chaos and disrespect for the chieftaincy institution in the country.
“In our view, a statutory provision which limits itself to a chief's call within his or her traditional area and provides a defence for a person who is called but has a reasonable excuse to not heed the call would have a better chance of passing the constitutionality test,” he added.
But Nana Ampofo said the current bill was more dangerous than the previous Act, and should therefore not be allowed to become law.
He suggested a national debate on the matter.
Not anti-chieftaincy
Nana Ampofo explained that contrary to the false statements being peddled around that he had become anti-chieftaincy since his abdication as paramount chief of Goaso about 15 years ago, he had always held the institution of chieftaincy in high esteem and still believed that the relevance of the institution could not be questioned.
Nana Ampofo, who held the position of Vice President of the Brong Ahafo Regional House of Chiefs, and a member of the National House of Chiefs, is credited with some judicial decisions.
