TAKE FIRM DECISION ON CHIEFS INVOLVED IN POLITICS - ANSAH-KOI URGES NATIONAL HOUSE OF CHIEFS

Story: Kofi Yeboah

A Political Scientist, Dr Kumi Ansah-Koi, has called on the National House of Chiefs to take a firm decision on chiefs actively involved in politics because their activities are inimical to the chieftaincy institution.
He said apart from this being an affront to the constitution, the involvement of chiefs in active politics also undermined the sanctity of the chieftaincy institution.
"They can contribute in other ways, but as chiefs, they are supposed to embody our culture and our society, and for that reason, we cannot treat them as ordinary people. Otherwise, they should leave the stool and become ordinary people", he told the Daily Graphic in an interview.
Article 276 of the Constitution states that “a chief shall not take part in active party politics; and any chief wishing to do so and seeking election to Parliament shall abdicate his stool or skin”.
Nevertheless, there have been several instances where some chiefs have been engaging in active politics without abdicating their stool or skin contrary to the constitutional prohibition.
The Omanhene of Agogo Traditional Area, Nana Akuoku Sarpong; the late former Speaker of Parliament, Mr Peter Ala Adjetey, who was also the Akyempimhene of Abiriw; and recently, the former Chief Director of the Ministry of Health, Yapowura M. N. D. Jawula, can be mentioned as some of the chiefs who defied the constitutional injunction to openly engage in politics.
Dr Ansah-Koi, who is a lecturer at the Political Science Department of the University of Ghana, said until the constitution was amended to allow chiefs to take part in active politics, their doing so should not be tolerated.
"My worry is that the law is being frowned upon", he said, adding that there was no need for the creation of a second chamber for chiefs, as some people had suggested.
Dr Ansah-Koi says, for now, one house is enough for the country, more so when there is a Council of State.
"If there is the need to change the law, then the law must be changed. My worry is the law being there and it being frowned upon. I don’t think that it’s necessary to change the law as it stands right now", he submitted.