Chieftaincy imbroglios when they occur in any part of the country are bad but worse when they occur in Accra, the nation’s capital. The national security challenge such imbroglios pose in Accra can only be imagined, if they are not nipped in the bud.
Many chieftaincy disputes abound in Accra – the most notorious being that of Ga; reference to which many love to do when discussing the subject.
As the custodian of our heritage, the institution of chieftaincy should have been spared all the shenanigans of politics and others. Unfortunately the contrary is the case: negative outcomes being the products.
It is for a purpose that a chieftaincy ministry was set up. It is in recognition of the role the institution plays in national development that the novelty came into being.
We are appalled therefore that the Ga State has had to suffer so many tribulations to the point of almost becoming a laughing stock; controversy surrounding the position of Ga Mantse being a factor.
So bad does it sometime become that security personnel have to move in to restore normalcy. We wish things did not have to degenerate to that level.
A few days ago, we gathered that a stride had been made with the installation of a new Ga Mantse after years of rancor and bickering including near national security challenges.
We have learnt about how some political machinations have been responsible for hiccups characterizing the chieftaincy institution. That did not start today. Indeed in the early post-independence days, political hands were seen in the installation of some chiefs and history tells us too well the fallouts thereof. They were anything but acceptable.
We wish to call all concerned in the Ga issue to be mindful about what can befall the country if the peace of Accra is disturbed. The image of our country is very critical in our drive to attract investors to our shores. Such diversions are disincentives to successful investment attractions.
It is our fervent prayer that the much needed closure to the Ga chieftaincy imbroglio has finally arrived. It would sound preposterous if those who seek to take the mantle of traditional leadership would condone with trouble makers to cause mayhem in the setting they seek to rule.
Those who are ready to compromise the sanctity of the chieftaincy institution they wish to assume leadership of, are mere hypocrites who have no business being near it.
The Chieftaincy Ministry although cannot play the role of kingmakers, they nonetheless can contribute towards ensuring that the conditions leading to installation of chiefs are adhered to strictly. We understand, for instance, how in the Ga state – a faux pas in the selection of the traditional authority responsible for installing the Ga Mantse is responsible for the hullabaloo.
We ask also that the decisions of the courts when they come must be applied without fear or favour in respect of chieftaincy disputes. Those who jump the gun by ignoring a segment leading to installations must be sanctioned.