Why hinder the truth from being told, o, ye traditional absolutist?

I have no qualms about anyone being a traditionalist. However, I have a problem with those absolutist traditionalists who are so entrenched in their beliefs and ways that they disregard any changes made to the traditions to meet and serve the current needs of society.

Let us assume that many centuries ago, say, one traditional overlord owned the entire land of the Ashanti Region and beyond in what was then the Asante Confederacy or the Asante Kingdom.

With the passage of time, laws have been introduced after extensive deliberations. The laws have been accepted through the certification of signatures to the changes made by all the paramount chiefs within the region or kingdom. They have all agreed that each paramount chief is the owner of the land they occupy, holding them in trust for their entire subjects.

Now, some overlords in the region rose one day to announce that the entire land in the region belonged to them, contrary to the truth as evidentially established by documents.

If, say, someone who knows better and possesses the proofs to the contrary comes out to politely challenge the overlord, should he be applauded or castigated?

You may be highly educated in a field but unaware of the laws governing the ownership of the land. Should you, being that intellectual, rush to attack the one telling the truth because of your previous knowledge about land ownership, sycophantic subservience, and whatnot, are you not obstructing the truth from prevailing?

When a new law is passed and accepted regarding a specific issue, all laws previously pertaining to the same issue in that regard stand cancelled. Am I right?

The new law will have become like a last will by a deceased person who had made one or two previous wills on his same estate. The last will cancels all other previous wills he may have made. It is the last will that stands, but not any of the previous wills.

The last will could be a modification through a codicil. What is a codicil, one may ask? “A codicil is a legal document that acts as a supplement to your last will and testament. In it, you can make changes to your will without having to rewrite your entire original will document”.

Whether a codicil or will, it is always the last one that stands supreme. Similarly, modifications or amendments to laws with regard to known traditions or beliefs stand supreme. They supersede all other known previous rules, beliefs, etc.

Therefore, if laws have been made to the effect that land ownership in any region in Ghana belongs to the government, families, and paramount chiefs but not any single traditional overlord, why should people attack the person conveying the current law and facts to the attention of the public?

Will you not be termed an educated illiterate if you conduct yourself in that manner? I am just asking.

Please don’t let your extreme love for your traditional overlord move you to deny the relevant laws and rules in place that may have been established to reduce the power of your adored traditional leader.

Let the laws prevail for the mutual benefit of you and me.