Minister-designate for Local Government, Chieftaincy and Religious Affairs, Mahama Ayariga, has pledged to respect the constitutional limits of his office and refrain from interfering in chieftaincy matters if approved by Parliament.

Appearing before Parliament’s Appointments Committee on Thursday, August 27, Mr Ayariga said ministers of state had no authority under the Constitution to meddle in matters concerning traditional leadership.

He said the responsibility of the minister was to support Ghana’s recognised chieftaincy institutions rather than intervene in disputes that fall within their jurisdiction.

“The first thing everybody has to understand is that no minister of state has authority under our Constitution to interfere or meddle in chieftaincy matters,” Mr Ayariga told the committee.

“It is not the business of the minister to meddle in chieftaincy matters,” he added.

Mr Ayariga said the constitutional and legal framework governing chieftaincy does not make the minister an arbiter of disputes involving traditional authorities.

Instead, he said ministers acting on behalf of the President have an obligation to provide support services to the institutions responsible for chieftaincy affairs.

He specifically mentioned the National House of Chiefs, the Regional Houses of Chiefs and traditional councils.

“The Chieftaincy Act and the Constitution impose obligations on ministers who are acting on behalf of the President to provide support services to the institution, namely, the National House of Chiefs, the Regional Houses of Chiefs and the traditional councils,” he said.

The distinction, he suggested, was crucial to ensuring that the executive did not exceed its constitutional remit.

While government has a responsibility to support the effective functioning of traditional institutions, that responsibility does not, in his view, give ministers the power to determine or influence chieftaincy disputes.

The Minister-designate said matters that properly fall under chieftaincy should be handled by the institutions vested with the relevant jurisdiction.

“When there is actually a matter that is a chieftaincy matter, it is actually the Regional and National House of Chiefs and the Supreme Court that have jurisdiction,” he said.

Mr Ayariga was emphatic about the approach he would adopt if given the mandate to lead the ministry.

“As a minister you have no mandate to go interfering in chieftaincy matters and that is exactly how I will approach the work,” he said.

The National House of Chiefs, Regional Houses of Chiefs and traditional councils would consequently remain central to the handling of chieftaincy matters, while the courts would retain their judicial role where applicable.

At the same time, the minister would still have responsibility for ensuring that the government meets its obligations towards the recognised traditional institutions.

Mr Ayariga concluded his explanation with a clear commitment to follow the constitutional boundaries he had outlined.

“As a minister you have no mandate to go interfering in chieftaincy matters and that is exactly how I will approach the work,” he said.