The National House of Chiefs is considering seeking a judicial review of a Supreme Court ruling which took away the powers of traditional rulers over their subjects under Section 63 of the Chieftaincy Act, 759 (2008). Naa Professor John S. Nabila, President of the House who dropped this hint at an emergency meeting held on Wednesday, said the section made provision for certain offences to be punishable by chiefs. However, the court in a ruling last July 20, 2011, struck out sub-Section (d) of Section 63 of the Act 759 which stipulated inter alia, 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." The court action was initiated on August 28, 2008 by the ex-Paramount Chief of Goaso, Nana Adjei Ampofo, against the Attorney-General and the President of the National House of Chiefs. Among reliefs he sought included a declaration that sub-Section (d) of Section 63 of the Chief-taincy Act is an encroachment on the liberty and freedom of movement, in particular, of citizens and accordingly in contravention of, and or inconsistent with the spirit and letter of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana. According to Naa Nabila, although the court ruling was quite clear and only took away the statutory right to punish which the provision sought to confer on the chiefs, "some unscrupulous people have taken advantage of that to undermine the authority of chiefs in their areas." He said this could be a recipe for disaster if not checked. The house has therefore constituted a committee to start the process of refining the provision and correct the ill that the ruling seems to have created. Naa Prof. Nabila said the best option available to the house was to take advantage of the window of hope created by the ruling for Parliament to rewrite the statute by taking a second look at the provision and refining it before Parliament resumes next month. However, the Paramount Chief of Gwollu Traditional Area, Kuoro Kuri-Buktie Limann IV, said the ruling of the court could have serious repercussions for the court itself. He explained that like the chieftaincy institution, the judiciary also drew its powers from com-mon and customary laws, most of which were written, adding that such a ruling was an attack on their own authority. Kuoro Limann said if the court had considered the said provision in tandem with both common and customary laws, its decision could have been different. The New Juabenhene, Dasebre Dr. Oti Boateng and Manponghene, Dasebre Nana Osei Bonsu II, suggested that the provision should be rephrased to limit chiefs’ powers to his traditional area define the offending party to be a subject or a resident within the jurisdiction of the chief. They said the expunged provision following the Supreme Court's ruling, was too vague and broad.