I would like to specifically address Baboor’s comments under the thread, The Asantehene's Saga - Does It Produce Food .... In commenting on a Feature Article of Thursday, 26 October 2006 one Baboor writes,
“Kofi Boakye mentioned that the otumfuo contacted and the IGP about the missing cocaine Kofi Boakye also said the arrested drug baron, alhaji Moro, who is also a bosom friend of the asantihene, is the one who gave the asantihene the "link" about the missing cocaine. Now, why on this big earth should asantihene be discussing the missing cocaine in Tema with alhaji moro, the IGP and Kofi Boakye? What was in it for him. Am I the one sending those drug barons to the palace? These people must be ashamed of themselves. Sycophants in defence of a crook and a thief”(Unedited)(SIL 2006-10-26 04:23:25 www.ghanaweb.com).
These are the arguments of Baboor:
1. Assuming it is true, didn't Kofi Boakye mention on the tape that Alhaji Moro told the Asantihene that he, Kofi Boakye knew the whereabout of the missing drugs?
2. Didn't the Asantihene discuss the missing drugs in Tema with the IGP and Kofi Boakye? “Even when the transcript of the conversation was released, the Crusading Guide and the Daily Guide deliberately left out the Otomfuo's name as if Kofi Boakye never mentioned his name (please listen to the 21st -23rd minutes of the conversation)”(As cited by Barboo www.ghanaweb.com, 2006-10-26 04:23:25).
Otumfour’s name was not mentioned in specifics. Why then is Baboor jumping into conclusions. Regrettably Baboor would like us to believe that he is right to make his conclusion with these disrespectful remarks “What these so-called chiefs (thieves) are up to is a "patapaa" crusade to dissociate the crook and the rogue (Kweku Dua) from whatever disgrace he has brought onto himself and Asantiman. Today, asantis have a crook and a rogue as their leader and that is the genesis of the problem they face now. No civilized society would have allowed the asantihene to escape the drag net of the Georgina Woode committee” (Unedited) (SIL 2006-10-26 04:23:25 www.ghanaweb.com).
Kofi Nyame is right when he writes in his Feature Article of Sunday, 29 October 2006 that “the more important legal and social implications of the Woode Committee Report have been lost in the debate.” It is very pathetic that even educated minds are giving less significant political and ethnic considerations to rule in this matter. This is by no means a sad reflection on us as a nation that a serious issue of national importance would be turned into “a cheap political and ethnocentric point scoring exercise.”
Article 270(1) of the 1992 constitution provides for the recognition of the institution of chieftaincy, together with its traditional councils under customary law. According to Article 270 paragraph (2), Parliament shall have no power to enact any law which in any way detracts or derogates from the honor and dignity of the institution of chieftaincy. Article 271 also establishes a National House of Chiefs.
Chiefs almost always inherit their titles and are rulers for life, that is, they have no term limit. Is it true that “Africa’s many internecine and frozen intra-nation conflicts are fuelled by contrived ethnic supremacies perpetrated by chiefs” as some would like us to believe?
Indeed many opponents of the institution of chieftaincy come with many reasons including the following:
• They assert that Ghana will progress within a non-hereditary democratic and open system for selecting oour leaders even local representative.
• The absence of chieftaincy would represent a new political culture - social inclusiveness would replace social hierarchy, mutual respect would replace deference, genuine intellect would replace the spurious wisdom of princes. Pompous titles, counterfeit 'nanas' and royal blood/heritage would be consigned to history. The current system of honours would be simplified and modernised and based only on merit.
• Absence of chieftaincy as an institution, they would like to argue would advance the egalitarian cause of meritocracy, and create a political conciousness less connected with social class or birth. Every child growing up in Ghana, from whatever background, would know from an early age that they too could aspire one day.
• Chieftaincy as an institution does not make for a society which is at ease with itself, and it encourages attitudes which are more suited to a bygone age of imperialism than to a modern nation. Maintaining a privileged royal family diminishes a society and encourages a feeling of dependency in many people who should instead have confidence in themselves and their fellow citizens.
• That 'the people', should be sovereign, not the offspring of one family retained at public expense to occupy the top job in a state system, permanently.
• That it should be a fundamental right of the people of any nation to elect their leaders and that such a leader is more accountable to the people.
• That the vast majority of common people, not being members of the aristocracy, are discouraged.
Generally, the anti-chieftaincy movement argue that any office based on hereditary is the ultimate symbol of unfairness and elitism. In a modern and democratic society no one should be expected to defer to another simply because of their birth. All these are good points but not sacrosanct. The question is: How well have our elected and meritocratic officers performed over the years in Ghana? It is difficult to factually support the argument that the common people are more discouraged in a monarchy than in a republic. “The National House of Chiefs and the ten regional houses of chiefs represent more than 32,000 recognized traditional rulers who exercise considerable influence throughout Ghana, especially in the countryside. As trustees of communal lands and natural resources, chiefs are often the pivot around which local socio-economic development revolves” (As cited in Bonna 2006 p239).
In my opinion some of our PhD candidates are even worse than our so called bad chiefs. A clear example is the non performance of our elected representatives from the presidency to DCEs. If the above were true, Ghana would have chalked much more progress after 49 years of political independence. Today we hear of DCEs and public servants looting money daily from national coffers. In spite of their big and impressive diplomas they cannot or are not performing. In fact many of them are a liability to the nation more than the worst of chiefs. So the question is: Are those strongly oppose to chieftaincy really sincere or is just a matter of sheer ignorance or hatred? You are the better judge.
Those arguing against the concept of Monarchy are a movement mainly in the Diaspora who hav had an experience with the effectiveness of western democracies or those who have no royal traits that seek to remove chieftaincy in Ghana and replace it with elected representatives. Their argument is that the chiefs have failed us and besides with the DCEs they have become redundant. They have a case however, I think this assertion may not necessarily be true. At least our current Asantehene and other progressive kings like the Okyehene have proved without reasonable doubt that chieftaincy has a noble role to play to compliment the efforts of government. Perhaps what we need to do is to draw a line between the chiefs who are performing from those opportunists among them. The least we can do would be, in my opinion, is to have competent chiefs to manage their own affairs rather than assembly men and women who are only drawing from national pay roll without delivering. The the paramount chiefs could act as DCE’s in an absolute decentralize Ghana. I bet this arrangement will not only bring out the best out of chiefs but also it will bring local development through positive and healthy competition.
Although the Asantehene’s power has diminished considerably since Britain annexed the Ashanti territory, he still serves as a symbolic role in Ghana.
A subject of utmost interest today in Ghana is the alleged link of the office of the golden stool in the cocaine scandal. The moral role of the current occupant of the golden stool is therefore being questioned in light of the or moral issues in Ghana today. Therefore I would endeavor to devote the rest of this paper to address this.
Complex issue worth solving
1. How did Otumfuo’s name come to be associated with the cocaine scandal?”
2. One of the alleged drug barons claims to be living 24 hours in the Manhyia Palace. How far is this to be construed to involve Otumfour?
These two pieces of information seem to inform the opinion of some journalists and the CJA in their clamour to have the Asantehene appear before the Woode Committee.
It must be put on record that the King of Ashanti has come out to deny any culpability. Further, a member of the Woode Committee has indicated in an interview with the Daily Graphic that there was no basis for inviting the Asantehene. He stated that the need to invite him would have arisen if there had been any confirmation that the Asantehene had interfered or intervened in the police investigations into the missing drugs (As cited in Nyame’s article, 29 October 2006).
So far there is no evidence for us to sit here and pass judgement on Otumfour. The only evidence we are told is statements made from tape transcripts which are not even very specific.
Folks, let us be careful what we say until the verdict is out. Let us allow the courts/law to take its course and stop playing judges. This is a very sensitive and high profile case. This is not meet for SIL or haters of chieftaincy to spit out venom. I pray and wish above all that we would understand that this has taken a turn of serious national crisis that needs serious minds to solve. If we make this into a political satyr and start attacking respectable national institutions in the name of tribal hate we may be causing more harm than good. “Everyone is innocent until convicted.” So far the evidence is not strong enough to warrant such careless statements from the likes of Barboo.
Copyright © 1994 - 2024 GhanaWeb. All rights reserved.
