It appears March is generally not a good month for the Paramount Chief of Talensi, Tongraan Kugbilsong Nanlebegtang, in legal matters.
The public would recall that when he sent his secretary, Richard Sunday Yinbil, and the Chief of Baare, Naab Nyakora Mantii, to the High Court ‘2’ in the Upper East region in 2023 to invite Justice Alexander Graham on the quiet to his palace for a private discussion on some court cases and the dangerous mission backfired big time, it was in March.
His name was in the headlines nationwide as the judge ordered the immediate arrest of his messengers in the courtroom for contempt, convicted them on their own plea and sentenced them. It took the sweat of about twelve lawyers to overturn the judge’s open determination to jail the two men and to haul the Tongraan himself before the court to face prosecution.
Again, this month (March) has presented the Tongraan with another development he may want to forget in a hurry.
He and the Paramount Chief of Builsa, Nab Azagsuk Azantilow II, have just suffered a fresh defeat in a civil case they jointly launched in September, last year, against the Paramount Chief of Chiana, Pe Ditundini Adiali Ayagitam III.
Justice Charles Gyamfi Danquah dismissed the entire case on Monday, 24 March 2025, at the High Court ‘1’ in Bolgatanga, the regional capital, 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.
“The action constitutes an abuse of the process of the court. The suit is, therefore, dismissed,” the judge, who doubles as a justice of appeal, remarked in his ruling.
The judge explained that when any party embarked on a court case that had no basis or a reasonable cause of action, such a move amounted to an abuse of the processes of the court.
The Chiana paramount chief, also referred to as the Chiana Pio in his traditional area, could have received some financial compensation for the legal trouble he went through but the Tongraan and the Sandem-Nab (a synonym for the Paramount Chief of Builsa) were lucky the judge, for a reason, did not award any cost against them.
“There is no cost against any of the parties as the court is of the view that it will enhance reconciliation at the house,” the judge clarified.
He was talking about reconciliation at the Upper East Regional House of Chiefs, which the Tongraan and the Sandem-Nab added to the Chiana Pio in the case as a second defendant.
Background
The Upper East Regional House of Chiefs held an internal election on Monday, 16 September 2024, for its members (traditional chiefs) to choose a president and a vice-president.
The Chiana Pio and the Paramount Chief of Mirigu, Naba Abisa Anonsona Anthony III, took part in that election as incumbent president and vice-president respectively.
They faced opposition from the Paramount Chief of Bongo, Naba Baba Salifu Atamale Lemyaarum, who ran for president, and his running mate, the Paramount Chief of Katiu, Pe Ayikodie Zangwio Atoge IV.
The house retained the Chiana Pio and the Mirigu-Naba at the election as its leaders and congratulatory messages flooded the house’s WhatsApp platform from its members to the election winners afterwards.
But surprisingly, the Tongraan, who had joined in congratulating the winners on that platform, teamed up with the Sandem-Nab and sued the Chiana Pio together with the house at the High Court ‘1’ in Bolgatanga two weeks later (Monday, 30 September 2024).
The remedies the two chiefs want from court
The two paramount chiefs claimed the election was held in breach of “the known and settled practice” of the house and asked the court to declare it “null and void and of no legal effect” and to set it aside.
They also asked for 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 this action.”
In addition to the above, they also requested a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using their offices to “unilaterally” change the “known and settled practice” of electing a regional president who also represents the house at the national level.
Finally, they asked the court to slap costs on the Chiana Pio and his co-defendants including the fees they (the three paramount chiefs) paid their lawyers.
The ‘known and settled practice’ of the house
What the two litigating paramount chiefs mean by “known and settled practice” of the house is explained in their statements of claim.
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.
Then came the Paramount Chief of Chiana at the time, Pe Roland Adiali Ayagitam, who, according to the plaintiffs, reigned from 1989 to 1990. They 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 ended his tenure in 1994.
Next to occupy that office 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 two paramount chiefs said 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 two paramount chiefs) mean by the “known and settled practice” of the house.
How the ‘rotational system’ progressed
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, with Paramount Chief of Sakote, Naba Sigri Bewong from Group One, 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, served 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 vice-president.
Alleged standstill in the house
According to the two 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 sought to replace the rotational system with a general election process and asked for the views of members on it.
A report compiled by the standing committee of the house, they said, stated that the house did not reach any consensus or conclusion on the matter.
The house reportedly agreed to hold further discussions on the matter. But the Chiana Pio, according to the three plaintiffs, unilaterally declared the position of the president vacant and opened nominations for any interested members to secure forms.
They 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, according to these three paramount chiefs, 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 trio.
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 two days ago (Monday).
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.
Why the judge said the case had no basis— and dismissed it
The judge relied on the laws governing elections of presidents and vice-presidents at houses of chiefs in Ghana.
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 chief (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 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 in 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 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.
Dismissing the case, he stated: “I cannot do anything than to agree with the submission made by learned counsel for the 1st defendant.”
Observers say the outcome of the case will go down as “a heavy defeat” in the history of the Upper East Regional House of Chiefs.
Source: Edward Adeti/Media Without Borders/mwbonline.org/Ghana
