Chiefs as kings? The struggle for supremacy

Ghana, a unitary state known for its democratic values and celebration of cultural diversity, in recent years, has seen the emergence of an unsettling trend.

Some political figures, government officials, and citizens have taken to referring to certain tribal chiefs as “kings,” despite this being unconstitutional.

This has led to a concerning development where these chiefs, now dubbed “kings,” are beginning to assert monarchical powers, behaving as if they govern sovereign states within Ghana.

This trend has not only caused confusion and tensions among the leadership and citizens but has escalated into what can be termed “The Struggle for Supremacy.”

This struggle revolves around the question of whose authority takes precedence: the chiefs (referred to as
“kings”) or the President of the Republic of Ghana, in whom the sovereignty of the nation is vested.

This situation threatens the delicate balance of power and governance in Ghana, prompting a critical examination of constitutional principles and the rule of law.

In the constitutional framework of Ghana, the institution of chieftaincy is explicitly recognized and regulated under Article 270, along with the provisions of Act 759, the Chieftaincy Act of 2008, which updates and consolidates the previous legislation of 1971 in ACT 370, to align with the 1992 constitution.

However, there is a notable absence of any provision for the institution of kingship within these laws. King, as defined by various sources including the Longman Dictionary, the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary, Dictionary.com, and the Cambridge Dictionary, typically involves a male ruler who holds hereditary authority over a country or territory.

This differs from the role of a chief within the Ghanaian context. While a king typically exercises the highest authority and power in a monarchy, Ghana’s legal frameworks do not recognize such a position. Instead, chiefs hold authority within the chieftaincy system, which operates within a democratic unitary state.

Monarchies typically feature a range of titles such as kings, queens, emperors, emirs, sultan, archdukes, dukes, etc. each representing varying levels of monarchical power. An emperor, for instance, presides over multiple states or nations and holds the highest monarchical authority.

Therefore, the distinction between kings and chiefs is significant within the Ghanaian context. Chiefs operate within the legal framework of chieftaincy, while kingship, as understood in traditional monarchies, has no place in Ghana’s constitutional or legal systems.

Understanding this distinction is crucial for maintaining the integrity of Ghana’s governance structures and upholding the rule of law.

In contrast to kingship, the role of a chief within Ghana’s cultural and legal context is distinct. A chief serves as the leader of a tribe or clan, regardless of its size, as defined by Dictionary.com.

Unlike kings who traditionally govern sovereign nations or states, chiefs do not hold such authority. This effectively renders the position of kings irrelevant within the Republic of Ghana.

Tribes in Ghana, such as the Asante, Gonja, Mamprusi, and Dagomba, are not independent countries but rather cultural and ethnic groups within the nation.

The leaders of these tribes, such as the Asantehene of the Asante tribe, Yagbonwura of the Gonja tribe, Nayiri of the Mamprusi tribe, and Yaa Naa of the Dagomba tribe, operate within the framework of chieftaincy.

Despite their leadership roles over their respective tribes, they do not possess the authority of kings, as their jurisdiction does not extend to sovereign nations or states.

Historical records also confirm the absence of kingship within the territory known as the Gold Coast, which encompasses present-day Ghana. No single ruler or king has ever governed the entirety of the Gold Coast.

Instead, the governance structure has been characterized by the leadership of chiefs within their respective tribes or clans, emphasizing the traditional and cultural significance of chieftaincy within Ghanaian society.

It is indeed true that before colonial rule, each tribe in Ghana maintained its independence in terms of traditional administration, beliefs, and practices.

However, the imposition of the British Indirect Rule system disrupted this autonomy, forcing some non-centralized tribes under the authority of more centralized ones for the convenience of colonial administration— (a topic that warrants further exploration in my subsequent discussions and episodes).

Given this historical context, it becomes evident that the concept of “king” is foreign to the Ghanaian vocabulary. No traditional ruler in Ghana exercises absolute authority over all tribes, making it unjustifiable to bestow the title of king upon any individual.

Unlike in some European countries such as the Netherlands, where kings and queens wield absolute royal power over the entire population, such a centralized authority structure does not exist within Ghanaian traditional
governance.

The very definition of a king, as universally understood, denotes a ruler with supreme authority over a nation or state and its population. Since no single traditional ruler in Ghana holds such absolute power, the notion of kingship within the Ghanaian context is inaccurate and misleading.

To refer to any chief in Ghana as a king implies a form of monarchy akin to that of the United Kingdom the United Arab Emirates or the Netherlands, which is not reflective of Ghana’s democratic unitary state.

Therefore, any attempt to claim the title of king within Ghana can be viewed as an act of self-aggrandizement, overlooking the decentralized nature of traditional governance and the principles of the Republic of Ghana.

In a country like Ghana, the highest office is that of the President, who serves as the commander-in-chief of the Ghana Armed Forces.

Within the current legal framework, if there were to be a king in Ghana, it would inevitably lead to a struggle for supremacy between the President and such a king.

This highlights the inherent conflict that would arise from attempting to integrate a monarchical structure within the existing democratic system.

Furthermore, if Ghana were to operate under a monarchy, the powers currently held by the President would instead be vested in the king or emperor.

However, Ghana’s governance structure is based on the principles of a republic, with power derived from the people rather than from hereditary rulership.

It’s worth noting that the practice of referring to certain chiefs as kings, whether by ordinary citizens or government officials may be motivated by a desire to curry favour with these individuals.

However, it’s crucial to recognize that such references should be seen as mere attempts to seek favour within the existing legal framework, rather than as a validation of any inherent superiority or monarchic authority.

Ultimately, Ghana’s constitutional framework is founded on the principles of republicanism, wherein chiefs operate within the parameters set forth by the Chieftaincy Act of 2008 (ACT 759).

As such, it’s important to uphold the distinction between chiefs and kings, recognizing that Ghana is a republic and can only have chiefs, not kings, within its governance structure.