Abudus Sue AG, Andanis

The assassination of Ya Na Yakubu Andani II (pictured), overlord of Dagbon sparked unending conflict in Yendi since 2002

By William Yaw Owusu

Tuesday, 20 April 2010
Two traditional office holders and members of the Abudu Royal Family in the Dagbon chieftaincy dispute have filed a suit against the Attorney General and two chiefs in Dagbon, seeking a Kumasi High Court order to compel them to follow the roadmap to peace in the area following the assassination of Ya Na Yakubu Andani II, overlord of Dagbon.

The plaintiffs are Kworli Gbang Lana Mahama Mahama and Banvum Lana, in the Northern Region.

They are jointly and severally suing the AG in her capacity as the legal representative of the Ministry of the Interior, as well as the Andani Royal Gate members, namely Kpan Naa Bawah Mahamadu, Chief of Kpano-Kpani and Kampa Kuya Naa Abdulai, Regent of Dagbon, Yendi.

A writ of summons filed on April 15, 2010 at a High Court in Kumasi by counsel for the plaintiffs, Nana Obiri Boahen of Enso Nyame Ye Chambers, Sunyani wants “a declaration that both the plaintiffs and the defendants are bound by the terms, tenor, provisions etc of the roadmap to peace issued /signed on March 30, 2006 by the committee of eminent kings at Kumasi and which said roadmap was approved, endorsed or accepted by representatives of both the Abudu and the Andani gates/royal families at Kumasi as well as the representative of the government of the Ministry of the Interior and the then Northern regional Minister.”

They want another declaration that “by virtue of the terms of agreement arrived at, or reached between the representatives of both the Abudu and the Andani gates/families in Kumasi on both March 29 and 30, 2006, neither the defendants nor their agents, servants, representatives can appoint any chief(s) or alienate, transfer, dispose off, etc any land or other resources belonging to the Dagbon state”.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs want an order “compelling the defendants to respect, obey, adhere to the contents and the provisions of the roadmap to peace entered into between both the Abudu and Andani gates on March 30, 2006 at Kumasi in the presence of three eminent kings/chiefs and representatives.”

They also sought a declaration that, “having benefited from the roadmap entered into between representatives of the Abudu and Andani gates, the defendants, their agents, assigns, successors, privies, etc are stopped in law resiling or reneging from the decisions arrived at or contained in the roadmap which was signed in the presence of credible witnesses at Kumasi”, further orders and an order of perpetual injunction.

Plaintiffs averred in their statement of claim that as a result of the unfortunate incident which shook the entire Dagbon Kingdom in 2002, resulting in the deaths of more than thirty people including the overlord of Dagbon, the then government set up a commission headed by the late Justice Wuaku to go into the matter.

The plaintiffs indicated that after the Wuaku Commission submitted its report to the government, a white paper was issued to that effect, saying “in furtherance of the then government’s determination to find a lasting solution to the Dagbon crisis, a committee of eminent kings was set up to reconcile both the Abudus and the Andanis under the auspices of the Ministry of the Interior.”

The plaintiffs indicated that the committee of eminent kings consisted of Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, Yagbonwura Bawa Doshie and Nayiri Mahami Abdulai Naa Bohugu.

The plaintiffs stressed that among the decision arrived at/agreed/concurred upon by the two gates was that, the powers of the regent shall be limited because of ‘the peculiar circumstances in Dagbon, adding “in that context, the regent shall have no powers to appoint any chiefs or alienate any lands or other resources belonging to Dagbon without consultation”.

“Notwithstanding the contents of the roadmap, 2nd defendant has been alienating, selling or disposing off lands without due regard to the content of the roadmap.

“The 2nd defendant has unilaterally been appointing chiefs to vacant skins without due regard to the tenor and provisions of the roadmap. In addition thereto, the 2nd defendant has also evinced the intention to perform funerals and enskin more chiefs (Kuga, Ylzoli, Tolon, Diyeli and Gushegu). He has already enskinned Nyankpala - Lana and Kpendu-Lana much against the decision capture in the roadmap”.

According to the plaintiffs, the defendants have evinced every intention to set aside, derail all the efforts being made or already made by the eminent kings, adding “the plaintiffs contend that the defendants are stopped from their conduct by resiling, or reneging from the contents of the roadmap.”

Also see :www.gailyguideghana.com