A Court of Appeal sitting in Tamale has upheld a judgement passed by the Bolgatanga High Court in 2017 on a chieftaincy-related dispute in the Upper East regional capital, Bolgatanga.
The rift is linked to the choice of who should succeed the former Paramount Chief of the area, Naba Martin Adongo Abilba III, after his demise in 2013.
The King of Mamprugu, Nayiri Naa Bohagu Abdulai Mahami Sheriga, installed Joseph Nyaaba Apakre, a one-time media practitioner, on Wednesday 6th May, 2015, as the succeeding chief with the royal title “Naba Abeka Nonge-Buuri Maltinga”.
Two days after the inauguration at Nalerigu, a lawyer son of the late paramount ruler, Raymond Alafia Abilba, was installed in Bolgatanga by principal elders, sub-chiefs and divisional chiefs of the Bolgatanga Traditional Area to replace the departed chief and given a regal title “Naba Awogeya-Lebna Raymond Alafia Abilba IV”.
Considering the development as a challenge to his authority, Naba Abeka Nonge-Buuri Maltinga headed for the Upper East Regional House of Chiefs in June, 2015, to seek a judicial pronouncement or declaration for himself as the legitimate Paramount Chief of Bolgatanga.
The Judicial Committee of the Upper East Regional House of Chiefs delivered a judgement on the case in favour of Naba Awogeya-Lebna Raymond Alafia Abilba IV, stating that he was installed in line with the Frafra customs and traditions.
Mr. Apakre claimed he was not given a fair hearing by the Judicial Committee on some issues he raised at the Upper East Regional House of Chiefs and took his grievances to the Bolgatanga High Court where the Judicial Committee’s decision was quashed in 2017.
Mr. Abilba’s side filed an appeal against the High Court’s decision but, after several months of adjournments, the court upheld the ruling of the High Court on Friday. However, the outcome does not mean the court has declared a rightful occupant of the Bolgatanga Paramount Skin. The lead lawyers to the two opposing sides, Abu Juan and John Ndebugre, spoke to Starr News after the Friday’s judgement had been passed.
“The parties are going back to the Judicial Committee” — Abu Juan
One of the lawyers representing Mr. Apakre’s side, Abu Juan, said the Appeal Court’s judgement pointed the parties involved to going back to where it all started— the Upper East Regional House of Chiefs — to finish an unfinished business.
“Our client should have been given a hearing on those issues. So, there was a breach of rules of natural justice. After the High Court quashed the decision of the Judicial Committee, they (Mr. Abilba’s side) also appealed to the Court of Appeal, saying the High Court was wrong in quashing the decision of the Judicial Committee.
“In the judgement (of the Court of Appeal), they (the panel) agreed totally with us (Mr. Apakre’s side) and agreed with the High Court that what the High Court did— quashing the decision of the Judicial Committee— was right. So, they dismissed their appeal,” commented Juan.
He added: “Having dismissed their appeal, the only thing the parties can do is to go back to the Judicial Committee so that the matters can, then, be gone into. That is when we will then come back to determine the issues that were left out, that were never determined.”
“We may appeal to the Supreme Court” — John Ndebugre
The chief counsel to Mr. Abilba’s side, John Ndebugre, spoke of the possibility of moving ahead to the Supreme Court with an appeal if, after perusing a copy of the Friday’s judgement, it was figured needless to go back to the Judicial Committee from the Appeal Court.
“I have not yet met my client. I’m going to apply for a copy of the yesterday’s judgement. I will digest it, meet my client and we will decide what next step to take. We may appeal to the Supreme Court if we don’t agree [to] the decision that was made yesterday. Or if we think that it is pointless to go to the Supreme Court, we may, then, take a clue from the Court of Appeal and go back to the Judicial Committee of the Regional House of Chiefs.
“What the Court of Appeal said was that the High Court was right to say we should have taken full evidence. Litigation must come to an end; it should not be endless. The Court of Appeal said the High Court was right to say that we should have gone through a full trial. It is not possible to agree or disagree with the Court of Appeal as it decided yesterday unless we get a copy of the judgement and peruse it, study it critically. We have 3 months within which to do this and decide whether we want to go back to the Judicial Committee of the Upper East Regional House of Chiefs where full evidence will be taken or we want to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court,” Ndebugre remarked.
Both lawyers have appealed for calm as stakeholders look to the future in the general interest of the municipality. State security services also have intensified monitoring and patrol operations to maintain the peace that is prevailing currently in the area. The Court of Appeal did not award costs against any of the sides on Friday as “the court itself would like some reconciliation to take place between the two parties in the final analysis”.