Johnson Asiedu Nketia, the National Chairman of the National Democratic Congress (NDC), has raised concerns about what he claims is a departure from the expected neutrality of the National House of Chiefs.
Addressing residents of Odumase in the Asante Akim Central Constituency as part of his campaign in the Ashanti Region on Sunday, November 10, Asiedu Nketia specifically accused Ogyeahoho Yaw Gyebi II, President of the National House of Chiefs, of engaging in partisan politics by allegedly supporting the New Patriotic Party (NPP).
According to Nketia, Gyebi II’s actions threaten the House of Chiefs’ integrity and may compromise its role as a neutral institution within Ghana’s democratic structure.
During his address, Asiedu Nketia expressed disappointment that Gyebi II, instead of working to mediate the current parliamentary impasse and strengthen democratic practices, was instead appearing in support of the ruling NPP. This stance, he argued, undermines the National House of Chiefs’ authority and could negatively impact the public’s perception of traditional leadership in Ghana. Asiedu Nketia suggested that the president’s alignment with the NPP raises serious questions about whether the House of Chiefs can remain an impartial institution amid political tensions, particularly when its leadership appears to be actively participating in partisan activities.
Nketia elaborated on his accusations by pointing to specific incidents where he claims Gyebi II’s behavior conflicted with his role as a traditional leader. According to Nketia, Gyebi II has publicly shown support for the NPP, even wearing clothing branded with the party’s symbols while participating in campaign activities in his hometown. These actions, Nketia argues, conflict with the expectations of neutrality and responsibility that come with Gyebi II’s position within the National House of Chiefs. Nketia questioned how someone in such a prominent traditional role could address issues within the ruling party while openly supporting it, suggesting that this stance compromises Gyebi II’s ability to speak out on matters affecting the general public.
Further, Asiedu Nketia suggested that Gyebi II’s alleged alignment with the NPP has damaged the credibility of the House of Chiefs and compromised its ability to serve as a mediating force within the political landscape. He argued that Gyebi II’s involvement with the NPP hinders the institution’s role in addressing issues of public concern and called for a return to the traditional values of impartiality and neutrality. According to Nketia, without leaders willing to objectively address the challenges facing Ghana, including those within the current administration, the nation risks weakening the checks and balances necessary to hold the government accountable.
In his speech, Asiedu Nketia went on to criticize what he sees as a general decline in the National House of Chiefs’ capacity to stand up against the ills of governance. He pointed out that Gyebi II’s alleged partisanship effectively silences the National House of Chiefs, preventing it from playing an active role in national discourse or engaging in constructive criticism of the government.
For Nketia, the absence of such critical voices from respected traditional authorities weakens Ghana’s democratic foundation, as the House of Chiefs traditionally represents a voice for communities and helps uphold cultural values alongside promoting national unity.
Nketia’s comments also highlighted a concern that the National House of Chiefs should be playing a role in addressing the current parliamentary disputes, as it has done in past issues impacting the stability of the country. Nketia suggested that the institution should be more proactive in providing a forum for negotiation and dialogue, as Ghanaian tradition places great value on mediation by respected elders.
He argued that the House of Chiefs has a unique position to help resolve conflicts and bring together opposing sides in the name of peace and national unity. However, with Gyebi II allegedly aligning with the ruling party, Nketia doubts the institution’s capacity to undertake such a role effectively.
Asiedu Nketia further questioned why there has been no critical response or statements from Gyebi II on the performance of the NPP government, implying that his silence suggests an unwillingness to hold the government accountable.
Nketia argued that traditional leaders, especially the president of the National House of Chiefs, should use their authority to represent the interests of the people, irrespective of the ruling party. He noted that Ghanaians rely on their leaders to voice concerns and to bring attention to injustices that affect the population. By remaining silent or aligning himself with the ruling party, Nketia contends that Gyebi II has failed to fulfill his responsibilities as a neutral leader and representative of traditional values.
The allegations from Asiedu Nketia add another layer to the broader conversation about the roles of traditional leaders within Ghana’s democratic system.
Historically, the National House of Chiefs has been seen as a custodian of culture and tradition, with its leadership generally expected to remain impartial and above partisan politics. Traditional leaders have been respected for their ability to mediate, protect cultural values, and support the nation’s democratic framework.
However, Nketia’s claims suggest a shift in this perception, with accusations that Gyebi II’s actions have politicized the institution.
Asiedu Nketia’s comments have sparked discussions among Ghanaians about the importance of maintaining nonpartisan institutions within a democratic framework.
Many observers believe that the role of the National House of Chiefs should remain purely traditional, serving as a check against excesses by any government, rather than as a supporter of any particular political party. The allegations against Gyebi II come at a time when Ghana faces significant challenges, including economic pressures and political tensions.
In this context, some citizens are concerned that political bias within traditionally neutral institutions may contribute to deepening divisions rather than promoting unity.
While Gyebi II has not yet publicly responded to Asiedu Nketia’s allegations, the accusations have ignited a national conversation on the responsibilities of traditional leaders within Ghana’s modern political system.
Some Ghanaians believe that if the National House of Chiefs wishes to maintain public trust, it must demonstrate clear nonpartisanship and commitment to the people’s welfare above political affiliations.
Others argue that traditional leaders can support political initiatives that they believe benefit the people, as long as such actions do not erode the public’s perception of their impartiality.
Asiedu Nketia’s statements also raise questions about the expectations that Ghanaians place on traditional institutions and the importance of keeping these institutions free from partisan politics.
For many citizens, the National House of Chiefs symbolizes unity, wisdom, and guidance, attributes that they believe should be upheld to strengthen democracy and safeguard the interests of all Ghanaians.
