The Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, has reflected on what he described as decades of political interference in Ghana's institution of chieftaincy, saying that successive governments at various periods after independence enacted laws that undermined customary authority by removing chiefs or recognising others outside established traditional processes.

He said although the institution survived colonial rule and political upheavals, it was, at different times in the country's post-independence history, treated as a competing centre of authority by political actors.

"It is a matter of record that chieftaincy has, at different moments in our post-independent history, been sidelined by political actors who saw it as a rival centre of authority."

READ ALSO: Delays in chieftaincy cases undermine public confidence — Otumfuo to judiciary

The Asantehene made the remarks during the Supreme Court's 150th Anniversary Celebrations and Lecture Series held in Kumasi on Thursday, where he delivered a lecture on the historical relationship between the judiciary and the institution of chieftaincy.

The event formed part of activities marking 150 years of Ghana's apex court and brought together members of the Bench and Bar, traditional rulers, legal practitioners, academics and public officials to reflect on the evolution of justice and constitutional governance.

Historical tensions

Tracing the evolution of chieftaincy from the colonial era to the Fourth Republic, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II said traditional authority experienced periods of both recognition and restriction under British indirect rule.

"Chieftaincy was at various turns courted and co-opted through indirect rule. Yet it also had its judicial functions curtailed and its authority made to answer to a foreign sovereign and foreign law."

According to him, Ghana's attainment of independence in 1957 did not immediately resolve the constitutional relationship between the state and traditional authority.

"Independence in 1957 did not resolve this tension so much as inherit it. Successive constitutions grappled, sometimes uncertainly, with where chieftaincy properly belonged within a modern constitutional order."

Political manipulation

The Asantehene said one of the most difficult periods for the institution occurred when legislation was used to alter decisions that traditionally fell within the domain of customary law.

He noted that some individuals who had been duly installed as chiefs under customary law and usage were stripped of official recognition through legislation.

"For instance, laws were enacted to derecognise persons who, under customary law and usage, had been installed as chiefs," he stated.

He added that, in other instances, laws were enacted to confer recognition on individuals who did not qualify under customary law to occupy traditional stools.

"In the same vein, enactments were made to recognise persons as chiefs when they were not, by customary law and usage, qualified as such," he added.

The Asantehene suggested that such actions blurred the distinction between constitutional governance and customary authority and, in some cases, fuelled disputes over traditional leadership.

Constitutional turning point

Despite those historical challenges, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II said the institution remained resilient because its legitimacy was rooted in the customs, traditions and acceptance of the people rather than political authority.

"Yet chieftaincy has endured precisely because it commands legitimacy that no statute alone can confer," he added.

He described the promulgation of the 1992 Constitution as the defining moment in securing the constitutional status of chieftaincy in Ghana.

"The 1992 Constitution marks the decisive turning point in this long history," he stressed.

The Asantehene noted that Article 270 of the Constitution guarantees the institution of chieftaincy and protects it from legislative interference while preserving the authority of traditional councils and the Houses of Chiefs in matters governed by customary law.

He emphasised that the continued collaboration between the Judiciary and the institution of chieftaincy was essential to strengthening constitutional governance, preserving customary law and promoting peaceful resolution of disputes.

He said both institutions had distinct constitutional responsibilities but shared a common objective of upholding justice and maintaining public confidence in the rule of law.