LECTURE: 9

TRADITIONAL AFRICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM-CHIEFS/KINGS

6.1 Introduction
Even though the post-colonial state -Ghana for that matter is emulating western institutions of
governance, which at times conflict with traditional African cultural values, some institutions are
still relevant for national development. One such institutions is chieftaincy. Chiefs can be said to be
the head or leader of a group or a community.

Many African countries, Ghana inclusive can be said to have a dual system of governance. They are
the modern state system of governance that can be found in most countries of the world, which is
also called modern party-political system of governance and traditional rule. This lecture will
discuss mainly traditional rules. Traditional rule on the African continent dates to pre-colonial days.
It is the age-old method of governance used by the indigenous people of Ghana/Africa to rule
themselves prior to, during and after the advent of colonization.

There are different forms of traditional African political system of governance among the different
peoples that occupied the region of Ghana today. However, two distinct forms of traditional rule can
be identified. They are the centralized and non-centralized systems of traditional rule (Nukunya,
2003). Some groups developed very complex hierarchical structures of governance as can be found
in the case of the Akan, Ga, Adangme, Ewe, Gonja and Dagbon people while others have simple
kin-based systems as is the case with the Tallensi people of Ghana. Others practiced matrilineal
system of rule and inheritance as is the case of the Akan-speaking people of Ghana. The Akan
political system of governance can be said to have one of the highest forms of the complex
centralized system of governance on the African continent.

In the northern regions of Ghana, even though some groups have centralized system of governance
that have hierarchical structures with clearly defined rules of succession and titles for their office
holders as is the case with the Mamprussi, Dagbon, Gonja and Wa, there are many others like the
Tallensi, Konkomba and Gurunsi who until fairly recently did not have such systems. It is important
to note that the history of the chieftaincy institution differs among the different ethnic groups and
even in the various administrative regions into which the country is divided.

Large segments of the people of Africa, especially the rural dwellers, continue to adhere principally
to traditional institutions despite the ‘destruction’ of these institutions by colonialism and
urbanization. In most countries of Africa, there exist traditional rulers with various titles depending
on the area. Some of these rulers can be described as chiefs/kings or monarchs with titles bestowed
on them locally. According to Crook (2005: 1) traditional institutions are “all those forms of social
and political authority which have their historical origin in the pre-colonial states and societies, and
which were incorporated by British colonial rule into what is now Ghana”. This definition shows

1
that traditional institutions are varied even in one country, Ghana and it is not static but changing
from colonial days to its present state. In this course, traditional political institutions can be said to
be the system of governance that is based on tradition and cultural practices of the people on a
geographical basis. Based on this definition, one can say that traditional institutions are varied.
Although indigenous in origin, they have changed in many ways during the colonial and post-
colonial periods. Traditional rulers have various names and symbol of authority. Table 8.1 below
shows chiefs/Kings and their local names and symbol of authority.

Table 8.1: Chiefs/Kings, their Local names and Symbol of Authority

Country Locality Local Name Symbol of Authority
Ghana Akan Nana Stool
Ghana Ga Nii Stool
Ghana Ewe Togbui/Togbe Stool
Ghana Dagbon Ya-Na Skin
Nigeria Yoruba/Benin/Togo? Oba Crown?
Nigeria Igbo Igwe/Eze/Özö/Ichie red or black cap?

Among the Akan people of southern Ghana, the Asantehene for instance, was once the ruler of a
rich and prosperous empire which dominated most of southern, eastern, and western borders of
Ghana. The Asantehene is today the leader of the Asante (Ashanti) state, and he commands the
allegiance of a group of paramount chiefs who rule the federated Asante states (aman) in a
hierarchy which is replicated down to the village chief level (Crooks, 2005).

6.2 Why Some Families came to be Regarded as Royal Families.

6.2.1 Through First Settlement/Occupation of the area:

Settlements are important geographical features in the world. In some parts of Africa, the way and
manner a particular place got settled is important in deciding who could be a ruler in that place. In
some cases, the chosen leader might be the person who found or who first occupied the area. The
leader may also be a person with sterling leadership qualities or one who in his own special way
radiated respect and confidence which helped the inhabitants to live in peace and harmony.

Early settlements in most parts of Africa were based on the extended family system. Therefore, the
basic unit of a community was the extended family system, with the head of family as the leader.
The person chosen invariably happened to be the head of a particular extended family. To make
sure that the leadership fulfilled the hopes and aspirations of the community and to enable

2
accountability to be made manifest in everybody’s role, some sort of social contract was entered
into by the head of the family concerned on one hand and the rest of the community on the other
hand. The leader of the family concerned on his own behalf and on behalf of the family was made
to swear to the community that he would rule with the consent of and in concurrence with the hopes
and aspirations of the community. Clearly, most chieftaincy positions in Ghana were and are still
based on this pattern, where the original settlers are still considered as the chiefly or royal family.

6.2.2 Royalty through Conquest

In other areas such as the northern part of Ghana, chieftaincy originated differently. It originated by
a group of invading warriors conquering places and super-imposing their authority on the local
people they have conquered. Examples include Ndewura Jakpa of the Gonja, who conquered a
group of local people whom Gonjas collectively refer to as the Nyamase and Toahajie of Dagomba
who also superimposed his authority on groups settled to the north-east of the present northern
region of Ghana (Braimah and Goody, 1967).

6.2.3 Royalty through Priesthood

Chieftaincy in most Ewe communities as we know it now is of fairly recent origin. Originally, the
Ewes had chiefs and Kings of their own under whom they lived in large, centralized kingdoms.
Their last king was called Agorkoli who ruled the walled Kingdom of Notsie. King Agorkoli was
said to be a tyrannical king from whose tyranny the ewe people broke away and escaped to find
their present states. Thereafter, mindful of their experience under Agorkoli, the Ewe people after
founding their present states, decided not to have chiefs and kings to rule over them. Their priest
therefore governed them for a long time. But the Ewe, just like any other development-oriented
society adopted their current pattern of chieftaincy, which are modeled on Akan forms after the
Ashanti and Akwamu wars that swept across the territory in the 19th century (Awedoba et al, 2003).

6.2.4 Origin through Trade

Before colonial rule, traditional authority or chieftaincy evolved in correspondence with changing
conditions such as in direction of major trade routes, in the location of international markets,
struggles for the control of natural resources including gold, and the rise of expansionist ideologies.
These factors all helped to shape chieftaincy in Ghana today. Chiefly positions which developed
along trade lines include that of migrant chiefs such as the Sarikin Zongo and the Batahene of
Ashanti.

6.2.5 Origin through Colonial Rule

Since British colonial rule, the organization and function of the chieftaincy institution have been
shaped by political engineering in the form of British Orders in Council or ordinances. In some
parts of Northern Ghana, there was no centralized authority. In those places, social control was
enforced through communal consensus. The colonial authority created administrative offices held

3
by chiefs to whom they gave the same type of authority as the heads of empires, Kingdoms and
principalities.

6.3 The importance of Chieftaincy Institution

Why is chieftaincy important in African countries and Ghana in Particular? Since independence,
chiefs in Ghana, as the case is elsewhere on the continent, have lost most of their formal executive,
legislative, judicial and economic-revenue management roles they wield before and under
colonialism. This does not mean chiefs in Ghana do not have status and authority. For instance,
under the 1992 constitution, the status and autonomy of chiefs is guaranteed, and they remain a
significant force in national development. The roles of chiefs can be seen in the following
economic, socio-cultural and political areas:

6.3.1 Custodian of natural resources – land: Most communities and land holders in Ghana hold
their land through of customary tenure. In principle, the access to, and the use to which that land can
be put is still controlled and managed in practice by chiefs, family heads or in the northern regions
tindaana. In the big cities and its peri-urban and commercial farming communities of the south,
such as Kumasi and Accra, land is an important source of chiefly power because of the existence of
cash cropping and economic activities in these areas. Such crops as cocoa and oil palm is making
chiefs highly important.

6.3.2 Family wealth: The most important chiefs of the larger pre-colonial states became very
wealthy during the colonial period, creating dynasties of wealth and influence as a result of the land
they held. This wealth is still available in some societies in Ghana and other countries on the
African continent.

6.3.3 Cultural leadership: Ghana, for that matter Africa is an embodiment of culture and
tradition. Chiefs and other traditional rulers embody these deep cultural values and practices that the
continent posses. For instance, the cult of ancestors, fertility of the land, taboos, festivals etc are rich
sources of cultural values that the chief serves as the hub around which such societies revolve.
Without chiefs, these values would have gone long ago as a result of colonial and modern
influences.

6.3.4 Political representation of the community/Community identity: Chiefs represent their

communities in all facets of life. Because of this political role of chiefs, they have been frequently
involved in party politics, either as ‘brokers’ for the mobilization of support, or as powerful actors
in their own right.

6.3.5 Duty to work for the progress of the community: The material and physical progress of
some communities and societies will not materialize had it not been the chieftaincy institution.
Also, the maintenance of peace and unity, are seen by people as the principal duties of a chief. This
is embodied, where a community is united, in the chief’s role as symbolic leader and patron of

4
development/youth/hometown associations. Societies/communities that do not have such a
personality are forced to install such an institution in the name ‘development chiefs’.

In their capacity as fulcrum of develop of the community, chiefs act as linkages between their
communities and development agencies including central government departments, local
government organs, NGOS, diplomatic missions, religious bodies and welfare associations. They
use the time during annual festivals to mobilize their people for the purpose of planning and seeking
avenues and opportunities to execute development projects in their localities.

6.3.6 Spiritual Embodiment: The chief is seen as the spiritual ruler of the land. Even though in
some communities and kingdoms, there is separation of powers between the title holder-chiefs
(kings) and spiritual rulers, in some, they are embodied in the ruler. Because of this role, many
institutions of chieftaincy in Africa is very revered and held in high esteem. At the same time the
institution is perceived to be an embodiment of the spirits of the ancestors and a link between the
living and the dead in the locality. In addition, the chieftaincy institution provides a renewed sense
of belongingness as well as being a powerful agent of social cohesion and harmony. Without the
existence of this institution, some people and their culture would have died with the advent of
colonial rule and urbanization on the African continent.

6.3.7 Judiciary-dispute resolution/Arbitration and settlements

The political authority of chiefs also enjoins them to adjudicate matters involving their areas of
jurisdiction and the community on the one hand, and in some instances involving people living
under his jurisdiction. Issues addressed by the chiefs may include land, marriage disputes, divorce
and subsistence. The chief/king also has jurisdiction over economic activities like market disputes
in his community at times, he does this together with the queen mother. Adjudication in chieftaincy
disputes is also a very important role played by chiefs. All disputes arising from the locality of the
chief are addressed and fines are imposed if the need arises.

6.3.8 Advisory role to Governments: since chieftaincy is recognized officially in Ghana, they
form a representation in the national house of chiefs, regional house of chiefs and traditional
councils. Each regional house of chiefs elects five paramount chiefs to represent the region in the
national house of chiefs. These bodies offer advice to the government on issues relating to
traditional institutions and customary laws. The national house of chiefs and116 -regional house of
chiefs represent more than 32,000 recognized traditional rulers in Ghana. Although chiefs are barred
from taking active part in party politics, one third of members of district assemblies are chiefs or
their representations. This is to make sure that development activities of the district are in line with
the aspirations of the chiefs.

6.4 Conclusion

This lecture has shown that the institution of chieftaincy is very important for the development of
African countries as a whole and the communities. African traditional institutions should be seen as
5
a vehicle to champion the development of people and their communities, lead the way in generating
new ideas and that which preaches new values and offers solutions to the teaming problems that
confronts society. It should be noted that, even though chiefs and kings once enthrone/when
investiture ceremonies are performed and they carry on their duties as prescribed by law/custom,
they can hardly be destooled. Destoolment is one of the reasons why African countries and Ghana
in particular is experiencing chieftaincy disputes of late.