DOOBIA MBA’WUNI BAKUTOMA LECTURES HON. MAHAMA AYARIGA MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR BAWKU CENTRAL

 

C/O AHMED WUNI P.O.BOX 76 BAWKU, UER
+233 24 272 7345 / +233 24 328 9980

28/03/2020

Dear Hon. Mahama Ayariga,

I am a Mamprusi, known by my native name Doobia Mba'wuni Bakutoma, son of one of
the Mamprusi Princes of Bawku, Alhaji Iddi Wuni of blessed memory.
I am a citizen of Bawku, hence one of your constituents.

I have read your humorous reaction dated 24th March 2022 on your official letterhead as Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central with the heading. "RE: NAYIRI COMMITTED TO FINDING LASTING PEACE IN BAWKU." Your reaction was in relation to a letter the King of Mamprugu Kingdom, Naa Bohugu Mahami Abdulai Sheriga addressed to the President of our dear country Ghana, His Excellency Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.

I wish to state that as a citizen of Bawku. I trace my ancestral lineage to Naa Gbewaa of Pusiga and his son Naa Atabia the 10th King of Mamprugu Kingdom who founded
Bawku. His son Naa Ali was the first chief of Bawku. Hence, Naa Bohugu Mahami Abdu-
lal Sheriga, the present Nayiri, is my direct and true grandfather.

It is on the basis of all of the above that I found it necessary to write to you this letter via email. Therefore, consider this as my response to your reaction as MP for Bawku Central, and a Kusasi who could possibly trace his ancestral lineage either to Yuiga, Zawga, or Biengu in Burkina Faso.

My dear MP, in your response to the King's letter he wrote to the President, His Excel-
lency Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo you stated that, "I am compelled to publicly
refute claims made in a letter dated 20th March 2022 with reference number
MTC/P29/F2/301 with the letterhead of the Mamprugu Traditional Council."

In doing so, you said many things. In my view, a mixture of insolence towards my grandfather, the King, misleading facts about the Supreme Court ruling in Alhaji Ibrahim Adam Zangbeoi Vrs. Aninceema Abugurago and Anor, and apparent lack of legal understanding of the said ruling on the matter, notwithstanding the fact that you are a trained lawyer with LL.M from Harvard Law School, one of the prominent centers of legal education in the world for that matter.

At this juncture I hasten to state that, I am not a lawyer neither am I suggesting that you may not have had good legal education.

           MOTTO: UNITY AND PROGRESS

You have a LL. B, BL, and LL.M. All these law degrees obviously places you in a high

pedestal in the legal profession. It is inspiring, and perhaps intimidating. Nonetheless, respectively, I think your legal appreciation of the Supreme Court ruling in 2003 is not enviable at all. Your position on the ruling and explanation thereof, points to two obvious conclusions as a lawyer.

a. Lack of legal authority, persuasive or otherwise to support it.

b. Ignorant of some relevant articles in the 1992 Constitution.

I shall explain.

So, I would like to reproduce the said ruling as follows.

"BY COURT: The application to discontinue is granted but without liberty to apply under

PNDCL 75 and articles 270 and 277 of the 1992 Constitution. Cost of c10.000.000.00 to the plaintiff."

It is significant to state that in your trigger-happy response to the King's letter to the President, under the heading "Why Mamprusis cannot be Entertained in the Supreme Court over Bawku Chieftaincy Matter" you emphatically stated two issues.

1. That "It is not possible to litigate the chieftaincy matter either in the Supreme Court or before any other institution under the 1992 Constitution of Ghana because the Supreme Court has denied anyone the liberty to apply."

2. That "Anyone seeking to litigate the legitimacy of the present occupant of the Bawku skin must come under PNDCL 75 and articles 270 and 277.

My dear MP, though I am not a lawyer, this is where I have fundamental issues with your

legal acumen of the ruling thus, your unsolicited legal advice to my grandfather just because you are a lawyer and qualified to offer a legal advice. Let me therefore, unambiguously state that mine is not a legal advice to you but an opinion.

Remember, just as "it took a child to be candid to tell the King that he was naked," in the Bible as narrated, it took a young man called David to defeat an uncircumcised Philistine champion named Goliath (who was always defying Israel) with a sling and stone. That said, let me address the two main legal issues in your response regarding the ruling.

My Opinion:

It is not correct that the chieftaincy matter cannot be litigated before any other institution under the 1992 Constitution of Ghana per the Supreme Court ruling or can only be litigated under PNDCL 75 and articles 270 and 277-not losing sight of the fact that the Supreme Court said the application to discontinue is granted without liberty to reapply under PNDCL 75 and Articles 270 and 277.

          MOTTO: UNITY AND PROGRESS

My Reason:

Yes, the Justices, fully aware of the facts of the case as contained in the statement of

claim of the plaintiff and counter claim of the Defendant, in their wisdom did not deny

the Plaintiff or anybody for that matter the option to litigate the matter under Articles 271 and 273. For the avoidance of doubt, article 271 is about the National House of Chiefs and Article 273 talks about its original jurisdiction on chieftaincy matters. Thus, it is imperative for any lawyer who is interested in understanding the said Supreme Court ruling to be fully aware that articles 271 and 273 are independent of articles 270 and 277 with regards to venue and jurisdiction of chieftaincy matters. Let me add that these two articles (271 and 273) are not part of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. As you may be aware, what the Supreme Court can only do about these articles is to enforce and or interpret them when called upon, but not to interfere with the work of the National House of Chiefs, an institution established and preserved by the 1992 Constitution, similar to the Legislature and Judiciary. As pointed out in your response, article 270"preserves the institution of chieftaincy" and prohibits legislative interference with the institution. Article 277 defines a chief." These two articles are not about venue and jurisdiction for litigation.

I should emphasize that article 271 preserves the institution called the National House of

Chiefs and article 273 give it the original jurisdiction on chieftaincy matters. The Supreme Court only enforces and interpret the Constitution as well as handle matters arising from an enactment like PNDCL 75. The Supreme Court in its 2003 ruling did not enforce or interpret or make any determination about who is or is not a chief of Bawku under PNDCL 75 and articles 270 and 277. It only granted the application of Plaintiff to discontinue case.

As a lawyer and my MP, do you mind explaining to the King how articles 270 and 277 affects articles 271 and 273 and why the Justices did not add these two articles in the ruling or why the Justices decided to restrict the plaintiff from coming back to them under articles 270 and 277 only?

This is what I think. The Justices recognizes two things. The Supreme Court is not a

place to adjudicate chieftaincy matters because the Constitution gave the original venue and jurisdiction to the National House of Chief. Also, the Supreme Court does not want to interfere in the work of the National of Chiefs unless it is related to its original jurisdiction. So, the Justices were simply telling the plaintiff that we do not want you to bother us with matters of chieftaincy for we do not handle those matters. The same reason applies when the court said Plaintiff should not come back under PNDCL 75.

You talked about PNDCL 75 in your response, however you did not indicate whether the said law which appointed your adopted father Aninchema Abugrago Azoka as Bawku Naba in 1983 has been repealed or still operational, either retrospective or retroactive.

         MOTTO: UNITY AND PROGRESS

I believe if you had done a little bit due diligence as a lawyer and or not being disingenuous, you would have been in a position to clarify this to the King.

As a non-lawyer but who value due diligence, I have good news for you. I am happy to bring to your kind attention that PNDCL 75 was repealed in 1996 by an Act of Parliament. STATUTE LAW REVISION ACT, 1996 (ACT 516).

I think it will be helpful for you to find out whether PNDCL 75 was retrospectively

amended even after it was repealed or not, so you can proffer sound legal advice to the

King (my grandfather). I doubt if your father and defendant in the case, Abugrago

Aninchema Azoka may take your legal advice serious because his lawyer in the case (Martin A.B.K Amidu) is still alive. What do you think? 

My dear MP and grandson of a Mamprusi Prince, the late Alhaji Akalifa Bugri, I wish to

conclude by advising that politicians should desist from doing politics with the Bawku

Chieftaincy matter. It hinders lasting solution and peaceful coexistence. Let's take the

admonition of the King of Mamprugu to use time tested institutions to solve the chieftaincy matter. Permit me to quote the President of the National House of Chiefs (Ogyeahohoo Yaw Gyebi II) talking about the Bawku conflict a couple of days ago on behalf of the National House of Chiefs.

"We call on the Mamprusis and Kusasis to jaw-jaw or resort to courts to resolve their difference instead of shedding blood and causing damage to property."

Your Constituent and Nonviolence Advocate,

Doobia Mba'wuni Bakutoma.

USA