The Paramount Chief of Sakoti, Naba Sigri Bewong, has withdrawn the civil lawsuit he filed at a high court in the Upper East region in October, 2024, against the Paramount Chief of Chiana, Pe Ditundini Adiali Ayagitam III.
He logged out of the case following the defeat the Paramount Chief of Talensi, Tongraan Kugbilsong Nanlebegtang, and the Paramount Chief of Sandema, Nab Azagsuk Azantilow II, jointly suffered in March, this year, at the same high court.
The Tongraan and the Sandem-Nab had sued the Chiana Pio (the paramount chief of Chiana) in September, 2024, on the grounds that his re-election as the president of the Upper East Regional House of Chiefs did not satisfy the agreed procedure of the house.
They asked the court to declare the election “null and void and of no legal effect” and to set it aside.
The Tongraan and the Sandem-Nab further requested an interlocutory injunction restraining the Chiana Pio from holding himself out as the president-elect of the house and restraining the registrar from submitting the result of “the said election” to the National House of Chiefs until “the final determination of the case.
But the trial judge, Justice Charles Gyamfi Danquah, entirely dismissed their case on Monday, 24 March 2025, declaring that the suit had no basis.
“In conclusion, I state that the plaintiffs have no cause of action against the defendants and the pleadings are accordingly struck out,” he stated in his ruling after six months of hearing.
Subsequently, the Sakoti Naba, who also was challenging the Chiana Pio’s re-election before the same judge for the same reasons, withdrew the suit straight away.
Background
The Chiana Pio was re-elected the president of the Upper East Regional House of Chiefs on Monday, 16 September 2024.
He got 19 votes against 10 votes obtained by his sole contender, the Paramount Chief of Bongo, Naba Baba Salifu Atamale Lemyaarum.
The Paramount Chief of Katiu, Pe Ayikodie Zangwio Atoge IV, ran for vice-president but lost to the Paramount Chief of Mirigu, Naba Abisa Anonsona Anthony III, who doubles as the incumbent vice-president of the house.
There was no sign that the election would end up being a subject of litigation after the Chiana Pio had received congratulatory messages on the house’s WhatsApp platform from the Tongraan and the Sakoti Naba on his victory.
This was what the Tongraan composed and posted on the platform:
Congratulations to all who won the vote today and to those who lost should take heart for better luck next time.
May God and our ancestors be with you all. Thank you all, TONGRAAN.
And this was the Sakoti Naba’s post-election comment on the same platform:
Congratulations, congratulations, congratulations. Yesterday, we demonstrated to Ghana that with divent [sic] views, we can exist as a House.
There was peace and with keen interest candidates impressed us with what they can do for the House if they are elected.
Then, he continued by adding this statement:
For well over 5 hrs, the atmosphere was siren [sic] and EC officials were on their feet supervising the process. To winners and losers, I congratulate you all.
Let us all rally behind our elected leaders to lift UPPER EAST REGIONAL HOUSE TO A HIGHER HORIZON!
May our Almighty God bless us all.
But on Monday, 30 September 2024, the Tongraan and the Sandem-Nab filed a suit against the Chiana Pio and the registrar of the house, urging the court to nullify the election.
And on Wednesday, 16 October 2024, the Sakoti Naba initiated a separate court case against the Chiana Pio, the Upper East Regional House of Chiefs and the National House of Chiefs.
The agreed procedure of the house and what the judge said
Before the house of chiefs’ 2024 election took place, there was a “known and settled practice” by which a president was elected or chosen for the house, according to the three litigating chiefs’ statements of claim.
Explaining practice to the court, they said after the Upper East Regional House of Chiefs was created in 1983 out of the Upper Regional House of Chiefs, which included an area known today as the Upper West region, the Paramount Chief of Navrongo at the time, Pe (Dr.) A.B. Addah, became the president of the new house. He served in that position from 1983 to 1986.
Next in line was the Paramount Chief of Chiana at the time, Pe Roland Adiali Ayagitam, who, according to the plaintiffs, reigned from 1989 to 1990. The litigating chiefs did not mention who occupied the office between 1986 and 1989.
The Paramount Chief of Bolgatanga, Naba Martin Adongo Abilba III, took over in 1991 and completed his tenure in 1994.
The next occupant of that office, in charge from 1995 to 1998, was the Paramount Chief of Paga, Pe Charles Awiah Awampaga II. The same chief continued as president for another term from 1998 to 2001.
He was succeeded by the Paramount Chief of Bawku, Naba Asigri Abugrago Azoka II, who presided over the house between 2001 and 2004.
The three paramount chiefs told the court things changed in 2004 when the standing committee of the house unanimously resolved that all the members of the house be put into three groups and the president of the house thenceforth selected through a rotational system from among the three groups in turn.
That is what they (the plaintiffs) mean by the “known and settled practice” of the house.
The chiefs who reigned under the rotational system
The first group, according to the three chiefs, comprises paramount chiefs found in the eastern and Frafra areas of the region.
Their statement of claim mentioned these areas as Bawku, Nangodi, Sakote, Tongo, Bongo and Bolgatanga.
The second group consists of the paramount chiefs in the central part of the region. They include Kologo, Naaga, Navrongo, Sirigu and Mirigu.
The third group, involving paramount chiefs in the western zone of the region, covers Paga, Sandema, Chiana, Kayoro, Katiu and Nakong.
The rotational system demanded that whenever it was time for a group to take its turn, it would vote and select one of its members as the president of the house, and the president automatically would be the representative of the house at the National House of Chiefs.
The plaintiffs said the new convention started with Group Two choosing the Paramount Chief of Kologo, Naba Simon Ayindana Asobayire, as the president of the house from 2004 to 2008, while the Paramount Chief of Sakoti, Naba Sigri Bewong from Group One, served as vice-president.
Subsequently, Group Three chose the Paramount Chief of Paga, Pe Charles Awiah Awampaga II, as president. He served from 2009 to 2012 with the Paramount of Naaga, Naba Olando Ayamga Awini III from Group Two, as vice-president.
From 2012 to 2016, the Paramount Chief of Sakote, Naba Sigri Bewong, voted and selected from Group One, presided over the house. The Paramount Chief of Chiana, Pe Ditundini Adiali Ayagitam III from Group Three, functioned as vice-president during that period.
The Paramount Chief of Naaga, Naba Olando Ayamga Awini III, took over in 2016, occupying the office until 2020, with the Paramount Chief of Bongo, Naba Baba Salifu Atamale Lemyaarum from Group One, as vice-president.
The plaintiffs said as the rotational system continued, the Paramount Chief of Chiana, Pe Ditundini Adiali Ayagitam III from Group Three, became president in 2020, serving until 2024 with the Paramount Chief of Mirigu, Naba Abisa Anonsona Anthony III from Group Two, as the vice-president of the house.
Alleged deadlock in the house
According to the three paramount chiefs, the Chiana Pio (a member of Group Three) declined to step down for Group One to choose the next president of the house after his tenure ended in 2024.
They claimed he caused the house to hold a meeting on July 5, 2024, where he sought to replace the rotational system with a general election process and asked for the views of the members of the house on it.
A report compiled by the standing committee of the house, according to the three paramount chiefs, stated that the house did not reach any consensus or conclusion on the matter.
The house allegedly agreed to hold further discussions on the matter. But the Chiana Pio, the three plaintiffs said, unilaterally declared the position of the president vacant and opened nominations for any interested members to secure forms.
The plaintiffs claimed said he went further by instructing the registrar of the house to schedule August 19 to August 24, 2024, for acquisition of forms, August 29, 2024, for filing of forms and September 6, 2024, for vetting of aspirants.
They stated that the registrar subsequently caused officials of the Electoral Commission (EC) to conduct an election that saw the Chiana Pio elected and declared president-elect of the house.
Allowing the election to stay, they also warned, would “endanger the peace and unity of the house in particular and the Upper East region as a whole since the subjects of Group One are planning to resist any attempt to deny their chief his right to be the president of the house.”
The statement of defence from Chiana Pio-led side
On Tuesday, 26 November 2024, the Chiana Pio filed a statement of defence, in which he countered the claims made by the plaintiffs.
He pleaded that the court declare as valid the election held in September, 2024, at the house. He asked for a declaration that he was validly elected as a president-elect and as a representative of the regional house of chiefs at the national house of chiefs.
Finally, the Chiana Pio entreated the court to declare that “the rotational system of electing the leadership of the house is contrary to the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759) and, therefore, null and void.”
The case jointly lodged by the Tongraan and the Sandem-Nab had encountered two complications before Justice Danquah delivered his ruling.
In the first development, the lawyer for the two paramount chiefs, Mohammed Tiamiyu, suddenly withdrew himself from the case on its first day— Thursday, 17 October 2024. He would return later to represent them.
Secondly, the court struck out the name of the registrar of the regional house of chiefs, which was included in the suit as a second defendant, on Wednesday, 23 October 2024.
The removal of the name from the suit came after the lawyer who represented the Chiana Pio and the house, Kenneth Adabayire, stated in a motion that the registrar was not a necessary party and, per the statutory law, should not have been added to the case. The lawyer also asked the court in that motion to dismiss the case for irregularity.
Similarly, the suit filed by the Sakoti Naba initially was thrown out by the court on Monday, 18 November 2024, because the writ of summons had no signature. And the drawback got worse as the court also awarded a cost of Gh¢2,500 against the Sakoti Naba after striking out the writ.
Despite those hitches, the two cases kept running against the Chiana Pio as Tiamiyu (the counsel for the Tongraan and the Sandem-Nab) returned and the Sakoti Naba filed his case again at the same court after the dismissal.
Why the judge said the case initiated by Tongraan, Sandem-Nab had no basis— and threw it out
The judge largely relied on the laws governing elections of presidents and vice-presidents at houses of chiefs in Ghana to deliver his ruling on the case brought before him by the Tongraan and the Sandem-Nab.
The laws were Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759) and the Chieftaincy (Membership of Regional Houses of Chiefs) Instrument, 2020 (L.I. 2409).
Act 759 says under Section 7 that each regional house of chiefs (except the Ashanti Region where the Asantehene remains a life-long leader) shall have a president who shall be a chief elected by the members of the regional house of chiefs from among their numbers.
Section 8 of that Act states that, where the office of the president or the vice-president of a regional house of chiefs becomes vacant, the registrar of the house shall notify the Electoral Commission in writing of the occurrence of the vacancy within 14 days of the occurrence.
Then, a meeting of the house shall be convened by the registrar by a notice published in the chieftaincy bulletin.
And the meeting shall proceed to elect, under the supervision of the Electoral Commission by secret ballot, the president and the vice-president who shall be taken as elected by obtaining a simple majority of the votes cast.
Regulation 13 of L.I. 2409 provides the composition of the members of the Upper East Regional House of Chiefs as the paramount chiefs of Sandema, Kusaug (Bawku), Navrongo, Chiana, Paga, Kologo, Katiu, Tongo, Sirigu, Nakong, Mirigu, Naaga, Kayoro, Sakoti, Nangodi, Bongo, Bolgatanga and Zuarungu.
The regulation affirms that the president shall be elected from the members mentioned on the provided list.
The judge also weighed the arguments advanced by the lawyers from both sides.
The position of the lawyer for the two paramount chiefs (mentioned earlier) was that the rotational system had not been cancelled by the house and for this reason the open electoral system should not have been adopted by the house at the recent election.
The counsel for the Chiana Pio, Raphael Alijina, argued that the laws for the election of president of a regional house of chiefs did not make provision for election by rotational system.
Besides all of this, the judge also took notice of the Chiana Pio’s claim that the Tongraan had picked nomination forms to contest the position of the president of the house but withdrew to support the Bongo paramount chief, who eventually lost to the Chiana Pio.
He further took notice of claims that the Tongraan and the Sandem-Nab participated in the election as voters and the Tongraan congratulated the Chiana Pio on his win.
And he recalled a question posed by the counsel for the Chiana Pio: “At what point in time did the plaintiffs form an opinion that the rotational system ought to have been used for the election, and would the plaintiffs have complained if the candidate they voted for had won the election?”
“This means that the plaintiffs brought the action because their candidate lost the election,” the judge remarked.
As he drew his conclusion on the case, he said “to choose a president of the Upper East Regional House of Chiefs by the rotational system is contrary to the law on election of president of the house.”
“As far as this case is concerned, no cause of action can be founded on this rotational system of election. It is against the law,” he asserted.
While dismissing the case, the judge affirmed: “I cannot do anything than to agree with the submission made by learned counsel for the 1st defendant.”
Source: Edward Adeti/Media Without Borders/mwbonline.org/Ghana
