Africans before the arrival of the Europeans were being ruled by their own chiefs. The chiefs as the custodians of the culture maintained law and order among their subjects. Undeniably the emergence of the colonial rule has resorted to much aspects of governance being engaged with the colonial masters as heads of governance. To re-empower the traditional system into governance a great deal of concerns are being ignited by the national house of chiefs into the constitution review activities calling for the creation of a second chamber inside parliament for them. While some resonate to this cry adding it would enable the people to be more in a straight line with policy making others seems to be disputing their assertions. The CRC rejected the proposal and instead recommended that bills be referred to the national house of chiefs for their input before parliament passes them into law. But some chiefs have vowed to exploit remaining avenues in the review process for the inclusion of the second chamber so they can directly participate in the governance of the country. Chief as a ruler of the people is not expected to announce his political affiliation. It is without an iota of doubt that politicians are busy buccaneering to harvest votes from the people and to help achieve their aim they resort to buy the interest of the people at the root through traditional rulers. This unfortunately has created a world where some chiefs are openly declaring their political stands; one would ask how the situation would be creating a chamber for them under the same roof with the politicians. This reminds me of a story of a captive falling in love with its captor. This is a sure way of our chiefs seeking to the political field of attraction; if a political group is aware that the enactment of a law depends on support from the second chamber, he would do anything to influence members of that chamber. This is a clear indication of the involvement of our chiefs into politics which should not have been so. One thing that would also raise eyes brows has to do with the eligibility; on which criteria would a chief be qualified to be part of this chamber? While the chiefs a busy struggling to get on the field of politics, their wives; queen-mothers are back home banging at the door gruelling to be part of the house. They believe their womanly roles are needed in the houses of their chiefs. A gender advocate Angela Dwamena Aboagye has also mounted a strong argument against a proposal for the creation of a second chamber of parliament for chiefs and however, insists the all male house of chiefs accept queen-mothers into their fold. This also brings to bear the issue of gender equality. Anytime trenchant are heard over women footing with men, those voices are seem to be coming from the west. But some interesting characteristics of culture is it viability to change and its dynamism. My hope is that one day those characteristics would be exhibited in these houses. Would the queens slowly walk into the house while their husbands struggle to make their way into parliament leaving their door ajar? Or they would also redirect their movement as they warm up along the touch line to join their husbands in their new field of play? With Ghana’s democracy at its budding stage, are we really ready for a second chamber?