Members of the National House of Chiefs are holding an emergency meeting in Kumasi to deliberate on the Supreme Court judgement that struck out Section 63 (d) of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008, Act 759 from the Chieftaincy Act. Sub-section (d) of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008, Act 759 states that a person who “deliberately refuses to honour a call from a chief to attend to an issue commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than two hundred penalty units or to a term of imprisonment of not more than three months or both”. According to the house, notwithstanding the fact that the judgement by the Supreme Court on July 20, 2011 clearly drew a distinction between customary law and statutory law, it seemed to have created confusion regarding the authority of traditional rulers in the country. The Supreme Court ruling followed a suit filed by the former Paramount Chief of the Goaso Traditional Area, Nana Adjei Ampofo, who had sought a declaration that “sub-section (d) of Section 63 of the Chieftaincy Act 2008 (Act 759) is an encroachment of the liberty generally and freedom of movement in particular of citizens and, accordingly, in contravention of inconsistent with the spirit and letter of articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana”. The plaintiff also sought a declaration that “the said sub-sections a, b, c, and e, of Section 63 of the said act is legally vague and overboard and also inconsistent with the spirit and letter of articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana”. He, therefore, sought an order from the court to expunge the “said sub-section from the said act on grounds of their unconstitutionality”. Commenting on the issue during the emergency meeting, the President of the National House of Chiefs, Naa Professor John S. Nabila, said following the Supreme Court ruling, “some people hearing the announcement of the Supreme Court started refusing to attend to the chiefs' calls and this could lead to chaos and disrespect for the chieftaincy institution in the country. “In our view, a statutory provision which limits itself to a chief's call within his or her traditional area and provides a defence for a person who is called but has a reasonable excuse not to heed the call would have a better chance of passing the constitutionality test,” he added. Expressing concern over the issue, Naa Professor Nabilla noted that since Parliament had been tasked by the Supreme Court to rewrite the statute, it was important for the members of the house to meet “as a matter of urgency to deal with the issue before our traditional areas become areas of confusion”. He said Parliament was expected to resume sitting in October and, therefore, urged the house to adopt a decision and present it to Parliament for deliberation by MPs when they resumed sitting.