The President of the National House of Chiefs, Ogyeahoho Yaw Gyebi II, has publicly denied allegations from Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, the National Chairman of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), claiming that he has aligned himself with partisan politics. Asiedu Nketiah made this accusation during a recent campaign stop in Odumase, located within the Asante Akim Central Constituency.
According to Nketiah, Ogyeahoho Gyebi II has allegedly compromised his neutral stance by supporting the New Patriotic Party (NPP), an action which, he contends, undermines the chief’s ability to serve as an impartial mediator and may negatively impact the credibility of the National House of Chiefs.
Nketiah’s comments have stirred controversy, as the House of Chiefs is traditionally expected to maintain political neutrality to preserve its role as a stabilizing force within the country. The National House of Chiefs plays a critical role in mediating national issues, supporting democracy, and fostering peaceful co-existence between different factions in Ghana. By suggesting that Ogyeahoho Gyebi II’s actions could impede the chief’s mediating role in the ongoing parliamentary stalemate, Nketiah highlighted concerns over the potential ramifications of perceived political bias among traditional leaders on Ghana’s democratic system.
In response to the allegations, Ogyeahoho Gyebi II firmly dismissed Nketiah’s claims, denying any affiliation with political entities or actions that would compromise his neutrality. In his defense, Ogyeahoho Gyebi II challenged Nketiah to provide concrete evidence to support his claims, if any exists, emphasizing that Ghana’s Supreme Court has laid out clear guidelines prohibiting chiefs from engaging in partisan politics.
These guidelines ensure that the role of chiefs remains distinct from political affiliation, preserving their ability to serve all citizens equally.
“If it is true, he can go to court,” Ogyeahoho Gyebi II asserted, encouraging Nketiah to pursue legal action if he genuinely believes in his allegations. He stressed the importance of evidence, pointing out that Nketiah could approach the police or the judiciary with any proof of him displaying party paraphernalia or actively campaigning for a specific political group.
According to Ogyeahoho Gyebi II, these guidelines by the Supreme Court exist to protect the neutrality of chiefs, and any breach would warrant action by the judiciary.
To further dismiss Nketiah’s allegations, Ogyeahoho Gyebi II explained that in today’s world, where almost every Ghanaian has access to a mobile phone with a camera, it would be easy to document and expose any such activities if they indeed occurred.
“Ask him where he saw me engaging in all those activities, where he saw me wearing the active paraphernalia,” Ogyeahoho Gyebi II challenged, stating that if anyone were to see him engaging in political activities, they could capture it on their phone and share it with the public.
The chief’s remarks highlight his commitment to remaining above partisan politics, insisting that he has not compromised the neutral position entrusted to him as the President of the National House of Chiefs.
He emphasized that his role as a traditional leader requires impartiality, ensuring that his actions and decisions serve the interests of all Ghanaians, regardless of their political affiliations.
For the National House of Chiefs, maintaining neutrality is essential to its purpose as a trusted institution within Ghana’s democratic framework. Chiefs are seen as custodians of culture, tradition, and community welfare, transcending political divisions to represent and advocate for the well-being of all citizens.
Political alignment would risk eroding public trust in the institution, affecting its capacity to mediate effectively and to resolve national conflicts impartially.
This accusation has sparked public discussion regarding the role of chiefs in politics. Some Ghanaians believe that chiefs should be entirely removed from political influence, upholding their positions as cultural and social leaders rather than engaging in political discourse. Others argue that chiefs, as citizens, should be allowed to participate in the democratic process and express their views on governance issues.
Nonetheless, the prevailing legal and social standards in Ghana emphasize that chiefs must refrain from open political affiliations to avoid the perception of favoritism or bias.
Ogyeahoho Gyebi II’s denial and his challenge to Nketiah to substantiate his allegations in court have garnered significant attention. By calling for evidence, Ogyeahoho Gyebi II has placed the burden of proof on Nketiah, reinforcing his stance that the accusations are baseless. This approach aligns with his commitment to transparency and accountability, allowing the legal system to address the matter if necessary.
Furthermore, Ogyeahoho Gyebi II’s statements serve as a reminder to the public of the Supreme Court’s guidelines regarding chiefs and politics. The judicial restrictions on chiefs engaging in partisan politics underscore Ghana’s commitment to a balanced political system, where traditional leaders provide counsel and leadership without directly influencing political outcomes. Chiefs who wish to engage in politics are expected to formally resign from their roles, a measure aimed at preserving the integrity of the chieftaincy institution and ensuring that traditional authorities remain neutral, accessible, and impartial.
In calling for legal action, Ogyeahoho Gyebi II has effectively redirected the debate to a formal platform where evidence, if any, can be scrutinized and assessed within the boundaries of the law. This response upholds his commitment to neutrality while emphasizing the importance of accountability.
His challenge to Nketiah reflects a broader expectation that public figures and political leaders bear responsibility for their statements, particularly when they implicate institutions or individuals in ways that could affect their public standing.
As the President of the National House of Chiefs, Ogyeahoho Gyebi II holds a significant leadership role that requires maintaining impartiality to ensure the House’s credibility and effectiveness.
His response to the allegations serves as a strong message to political leaders and the public alike, affirming that the chieftaincy institution is not to be compromised by political maneuvering or baseless accusations.
This issue has highlighted the delicate balance between Ghana’s traditional leadership and modern democratic governance, a relationship that requires both separation and mutual respect.
For the chieftaincy institution, preserving neutrality remains essential to sustaining public trust and fulfilling its mandate as an impartial mediator and advisor within Ghana’s political landscape. As discussions continue, Ogyeahoho Gyebi II’s stance reinforces the importance of evidence-based accountability, setting a precedent for future interactions between traditional leaders and political entities.
In the wake of this public exchange, the National House of Chiefs’ role as a mediator in Ghanaian society remains a subject of importance. Ogyeahoho Gyebi II’s firm denial of partisan involvement seeks to reassure the public of the institution’s neutrality, underscoring the commitment of traditional leaders to Ghana’s democratic principles while affirming the continued separation between traditional authority and political influence.
