By Issah Olegor
A fresh chieftaincy dispute has emerged over the Osenase Stool in the Eastern Region, with the Queenmother, senior members of the royal family and principal stool elders challenging the purported nomination, election and installation of Nana Boakye Asafo-Agyei as Chief of Akyem Osenase.
The dispute has been brought before the Judicial Committee of the Eastern Regional House of Chiefs in Koforidua, where the petitioners are seeking an interlocutory injunction to prevent Nana Boakye Asafo-Agyei from holding himself out as chief or performing functions associated with the Osenase Stool pending the determination of the substantive petition.
The case is being pursued under Sections 26, 28 and 76 of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759) and Article 274(3)(c) and (d) of the 1992 Constitution.
The petition has been filed by Obaapanin Acheampomaa II, Queenmother of Akyem Osenase; Abusuapanin Kofi Danso, Abusuapanin and head of the Royal Ofosu-Pema Aduana Family of Akyem Osenase; Baffour Oduro Sarfo, Gyaasehene of Akyem Osenase; and Baffour Kwadwo Boahene, Abusuapanyin of Akyem Etwereso.
They are suing for themselves and on behalf of the Royal Ofosu-Pema Aduana Family of Akyem Etwereso and Akyem Osenase, as well as accredited kingmakers and principal stool elders of the Osenase Stool.
Named as respondents are Osagyefuo Amoatia Ofori Panin, the Okyenhene; Nana Boakye Asafo-Agyei of Akyem Osenase; and the Akyem Abuakwa Traditional Council, represented by its Registrar.
Petitioners seek immediate restraint
At the centre of the legal action is an application for an interlocutory injunction.
The petitioners are asking the Judicial Committee to restrain Nana Boakye Asafo-Agyei, his servants, agents, assigns or any persons acting on his behalf from presenting himself as Chief of Akyem Osenase.
They are also asking that he be prevented from performing or purporting to perform any functions of the Osenase Stool until the substantive petition has been finally determined.
The application is therefore intended to preserve the position of the stool while the Judicial Committee considers the underlying dispute over the process through which the second respondent was purportedly nominated, elected and installed.
The documents before the Committee describe the matter as one “affecting chieftaincy” and specifically place the disputed nomination, election and installation at the centre of the proceedings.
Royal family challenges process
The petitioners’ composition is significant because it brings together the Queenmother, the head of the royal family, the Gyaasehene and an Abusuapanyin.
They say they are acting not only in their individual capacities but also on behalf of the Royal Ofosu-Pema Aduana Family and the accredited kingmakers and principal stool elders associated with the Osenase Stool.
The case therefore raises questions about the legitimacy of the process through which Nana Boakye Asafo-Agyei came to be presented as Chief of Akyem Osenase.
However, the documents supplied for the proceedings do not set out the full substantive allegations surrounding the nomination, election and installation. What is clear from the application is that the petitioners dispute the process and have asked the appropriate traditional judicial body to intervene.
Affidavit provides historical reference
The injunction application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Abusuapanin Kofi Danso, identified in the court documents as the head of the Royal Ofosu-Pema Aduana Family of Akyem Osenase.
Danso states that he is the second petitioner/applicant and that he is swearing the affidavit on his own behalf and with the express consent and authority of the other petitioners.
The supporting documents also contain historical material concerning the Osenase Stool.
One of the exhibits attached to the affidavit is identified as Exhibit “AKD 1”, described as a copy of an affidavit sworn by the then Mankrado of Osenase, Baffour Kwaku Awuah, at Asamankese in Suit No. MISC. 14/81 of the High Court, Koforidua.
The inclusion of the earlier affidavit suggests that the petitioners intend to rely on historical records concerning the stool and its traditional arrangements as part of their case.
The supplied portion of the documents, however, does not contain the complete contents of that 1981 affidavit, so its specific claims and how they relate to the current dispute cannot be established from the material provided.
