Referendum: National House of Chiefs 'embarrassingly confused' – CDD boss

Ghana’s traditional leaders at the National House of Chiefs are “embarrassingly confused if not misinformed” about the 17 December 2019 referendum which will ask Ghanaians whether they prefer partisan local level elections or not, the Executive Director of the Centre for Democratic Development Ghana (CDD), Prof H Kwasi Prempeh has said.

“NCCE, please arrange a special civic education session for our National House of Chiefs on the question that is on the December 17 referendum ballot. Apparently, our Niimei and Naas and Nananom and Togbes are embarrassingly confused, if not misinformed, as to what 55(3) is about”, Prof Prempeh wrote, following two statements issued by the National House of Chiefs on the matter – one rejecting the proposal to make assembly elections partisan and the other accusing one fellow chief of the House of dishonesty and mischief for claiming the House never discussed the matter prior to the issuance of the first statement.

The second statement issued and signed by the President of the National House of Chiefs, Togbe Afede XIV, and his Vice-President, Daasebre Nana Kwebu Ewusi VII, said: “Any suggestions that the proposed referendum to allow partisan politics in local elections was not discussed by the House is not only dishonest but wanton mischief”.

It was in direct response to the Chairman of the Governance Committee of the House, Ogyeahoho Yaw Gyebi II of Sefwi Anhwiaso, Western Region, who had claimed in an interview that: “I am not aware of any consultation or meeting”, following an earlier statement issued by the House in which it rejected the proposal to make local elections partisan and urged Ghanaians to vote against it at the 17 December 2019 referendum.

“This matter should have been referred to the Governance Committee of which I am the Chairman but it hasn’t been referred to me”, Ogyeahoho Yaw Gyebi II intimated in an interview with Accra-based Citi FM, adding: “If it came to the Governing Council, it would have been discussed at the Planning Committee, but this hasn’t happened, so, I don’t know who and who came out with this statement on behalf of all the paramount chiefs in the country, especially when two major political parties have taken a different stance”.

According to him, “If we are not careful, we will involve ourselves directly in party politics. So far as I am concerned, this is statement coming from two individuals not the house”.

However, the second statement from the House insisted that the matter was thoroughly discussed by both the Standing Committee and the General Meeting.

Espousing his views on the internal wrangling within the National House of Chiefs over the referendum, Prof Prempeh said: “Point 7(ii) of their Statement (attached) reveals a lack of understanding of what 55(3) seeks to accomplish”.



“They say in their statement that their NO position communicated in an earlier statement, which position is now disputed by other members of the House, was based on the recommendation of their Legal Affairs Committee that, "THE HOUSE SHOULD STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE NOTION THAT MEMBERSHIP OF LOCAL ASSEMBLIES SHOULD EXCLUSIVELY COMPRISE REPRESENTATIVES OF POLITICAL PARTIES, AS IN PARLIAMENT."

“Which proposed amendment to what provision of the Constitution are they referring to? There is no proposed amendment to any provision of the Constitution that would restrict membership of local assemblies exclusively to "representatives of political parties, as in Parliament". That is a palpably false statement.

“The proposed amendment to article 55(3) seeks only to remove the current prohibition against political party participation in election to the Assembly and Unit Committees, so that party and nonparty candidates alike can contest such elections. There is nothing in that proposal to deny membership of the Assembly to independent or nonparty candidates or restrict such membership to "representatives of political parties, as in Parliament".

“Moreover, the proposed amendment to article 55(3) does not affect the one-third membership of the Assembly that is currently appointed in consultation with chiefs and other local interests. Any amendment to that provision, if one is contemplated, would come as a complementary or consequential amendment if 243(1) is also amended. For now, nothing in the proposed amendment to 55(3) affects the one-third appointed membership of the Assembly.

“What a sad turn of events, that even the National House of Chiefs has been drawn into this small palaver in a dishonourably divisive way! People should just chill. In the grand scheme of things, a victory for either NO or YES ain't such a big deal, really”, the CDD boss argued.



Read Full Story