Customary law – Arbitration – Bias – Parties submitting matter to interested persons for resolution – Parties accepting award – Award binding as negotiated settlement.

Chieftaincy – Succession – Rotation – Burden of proof of rotation – Nature of evidence required in proof.

Chieftaincy – Queenmother – Status – Customary position of queenmother in Volta Region.

Words and phrases defined – “Clan.”

On the death of Agbada the mankrado of Gbadzeme and occupant of the Kofi stool, the plaintiffs enstooled Dokosi and introduced him to the regent, Dzobo who customarily accepted him. Some days later, the defendants also enstooled Dzasimatu and introduced him to their stoolfather who, it transpired, was the self-same Dzobo who accepted him also. Dzobo then called the two sides together to resolve which party had the right to the stool. In the event the plaintiffs accepted Dzasimatu albeit reluctantly and he was duly enstooled. A year later, differences arose over the true name of the stool and the defendants placed the issue before Dzobo but the plaintiffs were unwilling to appear again before him and rather lodged a complaint with the paramount chief of Avatime. The latter went into the matter and ordered the defendants to restore the stool to the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs sought to gazette Dokosi as the chief, the defendants objected. The plaintiffs’ family therefore commenced an action in the Hokpe Traditional Council for a declaration that the stool belonged to the mankrado stool and that the family was entitled to install the stool occupant, the mankrado and queenmother of Gbadzeme. They sought a further order to set aside the arbitration by Dzobo on the ground of bias and violation of customary law.

The defendants admitted at the hearing that the plaintiffs’ ancestors created the mankrado stool but that both sides belonged to the same family and clan and it was the defendants’ turn to occupy the stool. The judicial committee of the Hokpe Traditional Council found for the defendants and ordered rotation of the stool between the two families. On appeal the judicial committee of the Volta Region House of Chiefs upheld the arbitration before Dzobo and confirmed the rotation. The traditional council and the Regional House of Chiefs held that the queenmother was not a chief but a post analogous to a leader of the womenfolk. On a further appeal, the National House of Chiefs reversed the decision and the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Held: (1) An arbitration was binding if the submission of the dispute for arbitration was voluntary and the parties agreed to be bound by the award. The arbitrator must have observed the rules of natural justice although he was not required to follow any formal procedure. He must have acted within jurisdiction and the award must have been published. Asare v Donkor and Serwah II [1962] 2 GLR 176, SC, Paul v Kokoo [1962] 2 GLR 213, SC, Ankrah v Dabra (1956) 1 WALR 89, Twumasi v Badu (1957) 1 WALR 204, Mosi v Fordjour  and Adu [1962] 2 GLR 74, SC, Akaikye v Ediyie [1977] 2 GLR 70 CA, Akunor v Okan [1977] 1 GLR 173 CA, Foli v Akese (1934) 2 WACA 46, PC, Yaw v Amobie (1958) 3 WALR 406, CA, Kwesi v Larbi (1952) 13 WACA 76, PC, affirming (1950) 13 WACA 81, Tetteh v Ndamquaye DC (Land) '38-'47, 261, Yardom v Minta III (1926) FC '26-'29, 76, referred to.

(2) Although the parties had no right of withdrawal from an arbitration they could, after the award, re-submit the whole or a part of the dispute for further arbitration, as they could do after a judgment. The award by the paramount chief therefore superseded the regent’s award. Paul v Kokoo [1962] 2 GLR 213, SC referred to.

(3) Where a proceeding fell short of arbitration, but met the requirements of a negotiated or amicable settlement, it became binding only if it was accepted; thereafter neither party could resile from the compromise. Dzobo, the defendants’ stool father could hardly have been a disinterested arbitrator; the same might be said of the paramount chief of the traditional area of which Gbadzeme formed part. The record however established that in each case the parties accepted the award. At best those proceedings qualified as negotiated or amicable settlements, which became binding upon acceptance by the parties. Mensah v Esah [1976] 1 GLR 424, CA, Zogli v Ganyo [1977] 1 GLR 297, CA referred to.

(4) Having admitted that the plaintiffs were royals, the burden lay on the defendants to prove that they, too, were royals. That was the first requirement for establishing the alleged system of rotation between the two families. On the evidence, the plaintiffs and defendants were of different clans and the fact that at some point in time members of the defendants’ clan occupied the stool did not establish a rotatory system. A rotatory system was an importation from patrilineal systems from the north where the succession or accession to skins is by a rigid system of operation by gates. To establish a system of rotatory chieftaincy, all the houses or gates must be known and there must be in existence a rigid pattern of alternation, established from time immemorial. The judicial committee of the National House of Chiefs rightly dismissed the appeal.

(5) The word “clan” was defined as “a group of people with a common ancestor.” That being so, the Kofime and Osetu clans would have different ancestors. If they had a common ancestor, they would be one clan. On the evidence the seven clans at Avatime Gbadzeme must each have its ancestor. The fact that at some point in time members of the Osetu clan occupied the stool of the Kofime clan did not create a rotatory system between Kofime and Osetu for the Kofime stool by whatever name it was called.

Per Hayfron-Benjamin JSC. The repository of Ewe custom, the Volta Region House of Chiefs expressed itself on the position of the queen-mother in the patrilineal system that in the Region the status of the queen-mother was not as in Akim Abuakwa. In some traditional areas the institution of queen-mother was either unknown or that its significance was not appreciated. In other areas the queen-mother acted as a leader of the women and led the women-folk in the performance of communal labour and other functions. They were not known to perform any constitutional duties nor did they have stools of their own. It seems therefore that in the patrilineal system, at least amongst the Ewes, the burden of satisfying the constitutional requirements for the making of queen-mother rests with the woman who so claims or her family.

Cases referred to:

Akaikye v Ediyie [1977] 1 GLR 70, CA.

Akunor v Okan [1977] 1 GLR 173, CA.

Ankrah v Dabra [1956] 1 WALR 89.

Asare v Donkor [1962] 2 GLR 176, SC.

Foli v Akese (1934) 2 WACA 46, PC.

Kwasi v Larbi (1952) 13 WACA 76, PC.

Mensah v Esah [1976] 1 GLR 424, CA.

Mosi v Fordjour [1962] 2 GLR 74, SC.

Paul v Kokoo [1962] 2 GLR 213, SC.

Tetteh v Ndamquaye DC (Land) '36-'47, 261.

Twumasi v Badu (1957) 1 WALR 204.

Yardom v Minta '26-'29 FC, 76.

Yaw v Amobie (1958) 3 WALR 406, CA.

Zogli v Ganyo [1977] 1 GLR 297, CA.

APPEAL against the decision by the National House of Chiefs to the Supreme Court.

P K Twumasi for the defendant-appellants.

W A N Adumua-Bossman for the plaintiff-respondent.

AMUA-SEKYI JSC. On the death of Kwaku Agbada, mankrado of Gbadzeme and occupant of what the plaintiffs call the Edzekpa Kofi stool, and the defendants, the Kofi stool, the plaintiffs enstooled one Christian Dokosi in his stead. They introduced the new chief to the regent, Peniana Dzobo, who accepted him. It is said that some days later, the defendants also enstooled one Theodore Dzasimatu and introduced him to the regent who accepted him. The regent then called the two sides together to try to resolve the issue of who was entitled to sit on the stool. It is said by the plaintiffs that, even though at the meeting, the defendants were unable to establish their relationship with the Kofime clan to which the plaintiffs belong, pressure was brought to bear on them to accept the candidature of Theodore Dzasimatu. The plaintiffs reluctantly agreed to do so and accepted Theodore Dzasimatu as having been duly enstooled.

A year later, differences arose between the two families when the defendants asked that the name of the stool be changed from Edzekpa Kofi to Kofi and lodged a complaint against them before Peniana Dzobo. Unwilling to appear again before Dzobo, the plaintiffs made their complaint to Togbe Adja Tekpor VI, Paramount Chief of Avatime. It is said that the latter found in favour of the plaintiffs and ordered the defendants to restore the stool to them. The plaintiffs tendered in evidence as exhibit A, a document which confirmed those findings and also indicates that the defendants asked for and received the sum of ¢10 being expenditure incurred by them on a State umbrella and a cap. However, when the plaintiffs took steps to have their candidate gazetted as a chief the defendants raised an objection at the Volta Region House of Chiefs. Thus, the plaintiffs were compelled to commence this action to have the dispute resolved in a judicial manner.

By their writ issued in 1976 in the Hokpe Traditional Council, the plaintiffs claimed the following reliefs:

“1 Declaration that the plaintiffs, the Dokosi family of Kofime clan, are the rightful owners of the Edzekpa Kofi or mankrado stool of Gbadzeme Avatime and that the plaintiffs family are the persons entitled by custom to elect and install the occupant of the Edzekpa Kofi stool or the mankrado of Gzadzeme.

2 Declaration that the plaintiffs, the Dokosi family of Kofime clan are the persons entitled to elect and install the queenmother of Gbadzeme.

3 To set aside an alleged constitutional settlement made by a body of alleged arbitrators headed by regent Peniana Dzobo on 22/8/67 between the plaintiffs and the defendants’ predecessor Vincent Dzasimatu (deceased) herein on the ground of-

(a) Bias.

(b) Nobody referred any matter to the alleged arbitrators to be arbitrated upon between the parties.

(c) The alleged arbitration and or settlement was not conducted in accordance with native custom and usages.

(d) The record and the judgment do not reflect or represent a true record of the proceedings.”

Accompanying the writ was a lengthy statement of claim of some 40 paragraphs. The uncompromising stand of the defendants is reflected in the fact that they denied in whole or in part each and every one of the averments in the statement of claim except paragraph 3 where the plaintiffs stated:

“The mankrado stool of Gbadzeme the subject matter of this dispute was created by the plaintiffs’ ancestors before the people of Avatime migrated from Ahanta to their present place of abode.”

The answer of the defendants is in paragraph 4 of the defence where they state:

“The defendants admit paragraph 3 of the statement. The defendants say further that they (defendants) and plaintiffs are of the same family belonging to the Kofime clan.”

As to their ancestry and their own claim to the stool they averred in paragraph 17 and 18 as follows:

“17 The defendants say that they and the plaintiffs are all of one family originating from one ancestor called Kofi. The Osetu and the Kofime have therefore everything in common.

18 The defendants are claiming the stool because it is the turn of defendants to occupy the stool in dispute.”

Thus, the claim of the plaintiffs to be royals of the stool was admitted. What remained to be determined was whether the defendants were also royals.

It was common that there are seven clans at Avatime Gbadzeme. These are Kofime, to which the plaintiffs say they belong, Osetu, to which after some prevarication the defendants finally admitted they belong, Avasiale, Wudeme, Aza, Kpoedu and Otunmenya. The traditional history of the plaintiffs is that they migrated from Ahanta. The Kofime clan with their stool were led by Kale who was succeeded by Avadzo. It was under the leadership of the latter that they reached Wodome near Biakpa. Avadzo died there and leadership passed to Edzekpa Kofi who became caretaker of the stool. Edzekpa Kofi was succeeded by Obuabese. It was while Obuabese was the leader of the Kofime clan that they moved to Gbadzeme, their present abode. At Gbadzeme, Obuabese was succeeded by his son Kofi. Kofi was succeeded by his son Etsiriwu. Other sons of Kofi were Aza, Tsetse, Avese Adom and Adonfui.

It is the case for the plaintiffs that on the death of Etsiriwu the Kofime clan permitted Feisi, a maternal nephew, who belonged to the Osetu clan, to sit on the stool. After Feisi, Dokosi of Kofime clan was enstooled, and then Addai Kwasi, another nephew of the Osetu clan was enstooled. After Addai Kwasi, Dusunu of Kofime clan, then Kwaku Agbada of Kofime clan were enstooled. It was after the death of Agbada that the Dokosi family of Kofime clan and the Dzasimatu family of Osetu clan put up rival candidates to sit on the stool.

The defendants traced their ancestry to one Kofi who they say migrated from Ahanta with his stool. According to them the migrants first settled at the Shai Plains. They later moved to Matse and then to Oxulosu. Kofi was the father of Edzisu and Edzekpa. According to the defendants, the Dzasimatus are descendants from Edzisu, and the Dokosi, from Edzekpa. They said that the migrants moved from Oxulosu to Wodome and that it was while there that they became known as Osetu. At Wodome the Osetu were under the leadership of Edzisu (or Djisu). It was under Djisu that they moved to Gbadzeme, their present abode. They say that Djisu was succeeded by Kekrebesi and Kekrebesi by his son Feisi. After Feisi, Dokosi, son of Edzekpa was enstooled and after Dokosi, Addai Kwasi also a son of Kekrebesi was enstooled. Addai Kwasi was succeeded by Dusunu, and Dusunu by Kwaku Agbada. They insist that the Dokosis and the Dzasimatus belong to the same family.

According to the defendants, what happened after the enstoolment of the rival candidates was that the elders of Gbadzeme called the two parties together and resolved the issue by calling on the Dokosi to withdraw their candidate. This was done, but a new dispute arose over the name of the stool, the Dokosi family saying it was called Edzekpa Kofi and the Dzasimatu saying it was called Kofi. Upon the complaint of the plaintiffs the parties appeared before Togbe Adja Tekpor VI and his elders who found in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants then made representations to the Volta Region House of Chiefs which, according to the defendants, assured them that they could ignore the decision and re-claim the stool.

In the Hokpe Traditional Council the judicial committee found in favour of the defendants. It is hard to see how such a decision could have been arrived at in the face of the conflict between the pleadings of the defendants and their evidence, as well as that between them and their witnesses. With regard to the female stool the committee held that it should go with the male stool. On appeal to the Volta Region House of Chiefs, although the judicial committee took the view that the proceedings before Peniana Dzobo was a valid arbitration it did not base its decision on this but rather on estoppel by conduct. They said:

“Finally, it is our opinion that the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ families are so closely connected with the mankrado stool and perform so many functions in common regarding it that the only logical conclusion to arrive at is that even though originally the plaintiffs may have had exclusive possession of the stool their subsequent actions can only be interpreted to mean that they have accepted the defendants as co-partakers of the mankrado stool. For these reasons we confirm the decision of the Hokpe Traditional Council that the stool should rotate between the plaintiffs and defendants’ families.’

The committee however rejected the findings with regard to the status of a queenmother. They took judicial notice of the fact that in most parts of the Region the position of queenmother is either unknown or is analogous to that of a leader of the womenfolk. The queen-mother has no stool and is not recognised as a chief. They therefore set aside that part of the judgment dealing with the position of queenmother on the ground that that dispute was not a cause or matter affecting chieftaincy. A member of the panel who dissented on the main judgment agreed with his colleagues in their decision with regard to the position of queenmother. The matter then went before the National House of Chiefs. There the decision regarding the male stool was reversed. It is against this judgment that the defendants have appealed to this court.

The first issue to be determined is whether what took place before regent Peniana Dzobo and Togbe Adja Tekpor VI were arbitrations. The law on this may be briefly re-stated: A purported arbitration is binding if (a) the submission of the dispute was voluntary: Asare v Donkor and Serwah II [1962] 2 GLR 176, SC, Paul v Kokoo [1962] 2 GLR 213, SC, (b) the parties agreed to be bound by the decision, whichever way it went: Ankrah v Dabra (1956) 1 WALR 89, Twumasi v Badu (1957) 1 WALR 204, Mosi v Fordjour and Adu [1962] 2 GLR 74, SC; (c) the rules of natural justice were observed: Akaikye v Ediyie [1977] 2 GLR 70, CA, although the arbitrator need not follow any formal procedures: Akunor v Okan [1977] 1 GLR 173, CA; (d) the arbitrator acted within jurisdiction: Foli v Akese (1934) 2 WACA 46, PC, and (e) the decision or award was made known: see Yaw v Amobie (1958) 3 WALR 406, CA.

Although there is no right in the parties to resile from an arbitration (Kwesi v Larbi (1952) 13 WACA 76, PC, affirming (1950) 13 WACA 81), the parties may, after award, re-submit the whole, or a part, of the dispute to a further arbitration, just as they may do after a judgment: Tetteh v Ndamquaye DC (Land) ‘38-‘47, 261; Yardom v Minta III (1926) FC ‘26-‘29, 76. Where the proceedings fall short of an arbitration, but meet the requirements of a negotiated or amicable settlement, the decision becomes binding only if it is accepted by the parties: Mensah v Esah [1976] 1 GLR 424, CA. Thereafter, neither party can resile from the compromise: Zogli v Ganyo [1977] 1 GLR 297, CA.

In Paul v Kokoo, the Supreme Court said per Adumua-Bossman JSC at page 217 that:

“…the only solid foundation of a valid customary arbitration and binding award is the voluntary submission of the disputants; however much they may be quarrelling, of their dispute to a relatively disinterested third party to make a fair investigation into it and give a decision on it for them.”

In this case the regent Peniana Dzobo, who is described by the defendants as stool father, could hardly have been a disinterested party. The same may be said of Togbe Adja Tekpor VI who is the Paramount Chief of the traditional area of which Gbadzeme forms part. As to the way and manner in which the proceedings were conducted, we have no information about this, as the parties did not offer any evidence on that aspect of the matter. What we do know, however, is that in each case the decision was accepted. Given the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that at best the proceedings could be described as negotiated or amicable settlements, which became binding on the parties when they accepted the decisions.

The terms upon which Togbe Adja Tekpor VI settled the dispute are recorded in exhibit A, which reads:

“This concerns the dispute settled by the Avatime Traditional Council at Vane Avatime on 20/9/68 between Kofime clan and Osetume clan, both from Gbadzeme over the mankroado stool and the queenmothers stool of Gbadzeme.

Enstoolment of mankrado

In accordance with the judgment given in the above case by the Avatime Traditional Council, I have been empowered by the above Council to request Osetume clan to hand over the mankrado stool to Kofi clan through me.

On this date, 28/9/68, we came down and got the stool from Osetume clan and gave it to Kofime clan. This was done by myself, Togbui Akyem Foli V and my elders.

Before the stool was handed over Osetume clan stated that they and Kofime clan together contributed money and bought the mankrado's cap and his State umbrella. The talking-drums were also bought by three clans, the Osetume, Kofime and Wudome clans. The Osetume clan demanded refund of their contributions to them. We decided that the three clans should continue to use the talking drums together. Concerning the contributions for the purchase of the cap and the umbrella, we decided that Kofime clan should pay N¢10 or £5 to Osetume clan so that there should be peace between disputants.

Kofime clan paid this amount to Osetume clan through me and the elders. We handed over this amount to Osetume clan through Vincent Dzasimatu. After this we got the stool and gave it to the Kofime clan through Dokosi.

After this the new mankrado-elect, Master Christian Kwaku Dokosi, was brought to the marked place and we performed all the customs connected with the enstoolment. He was enstooled according to custom on 28/9/68. He was enstooled at Gbadzeme in Avatime.

(sgd) Togbui Akyem Foli V.

DIVISIONAL CHIEF OF AVATIME.”

These terms supersede those agreed upon before regent Peniana Dzobo.

As I pointed out earlier, having admitted that the plaintiffs were royals, the burden lay on the defendants to prove that they, too, were royals. That was the first requirement to establishing that by the tradition of the stool there was a system of rotation between the Dokosi and the Dzasimatu families. The cross-examination of Reverend Anku, 4th defendant and spokesman for the defendants, showed the hollowness of their claims. Here are a few choice examples.

“Q          Do you know we are the Kofime clan at Gbadzeme?

A           No. You the Dokosis, are not Kofime clan, but Osetu clan.

Q           Are you aware you are the Osetu clan?

A           We and you, Dokosi, are together the Osetu clan.

 Q          Are you aware there are contributions by each clan at Gbadzeme during the Easter celebrations?

A           Yes.

Q           Are you aware that the name Osetu is always applied to your contributions?

A           Yes.

Q           Are you aware that the name Kofime is always applied to our contributions?

A           Yes, it is because you were brought up there.

Q           Are you aware that Kwaku Agbada was mankrado as a candidate of the Kofime clan?

A           Yes, but we let you know that it was Korkor Yawo who brought you to the Kofime clan

Q           How many clans were we from Ahanta?

A           There were no clans from Ahanta to Wodome.

Q           How were the clans created at Gbadzeme?

A           Every family with its leader came to Gbadzeme.

Q           Are you aware that each of the clans of Gbadzeme has its own State drum?

A           Yes.

Q           Do you know that Kofime clan (our clan) has its own State drum and that your clan Osetume also has its State drum?

A           Yes.

Q           Will you now agree with me that we are members of the Kofime clan and you are members of the Osetume clan?

A           No. Your presence in the Kofime clan does not mean that you are members of the Kofime clan.”

While Reverend Anku had testified that Feisi and Addai Kwasi were brothers, being both children of Kekrebesi, their witnesses, Daniel Akpabi said that Addai Kwasi was the son of Feisi and in paragraph 8 of the defence it had been alleged that they were the children of Gyaesu who was the son of Kofi. Again, after Anku had admitted under cross-examination that Obuabese belonged to the Kofime clan, their witness, Kwamla Onyame came forward to give evidence that Obuabese was the son of Okorkor (or Koko or Korkor) Yawo and gave the name of his mother as Wordesenya. This evidence, if true, would make Okorkor Yawo a member of the Kofime clan. If Yawo was the elder brother of Edzekpa, as Anku alleged, then Edzekpa must also have been of the Kofime clan. The insistence of Anku that Yawo brought up Edzekpa in Kofime clan becomes intelligible only if it is accepted that both of them belonged to the Kofime clan rather than the Osetu clan.

There is one other reason why the decision of the National House of Chiefs ought to be upheld. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word “clan” as “a group of people with a common ancestor.” That being so, each of the two clans, Kofime and Osetu, must have a different ancestor. They cannot have a common ancestor. If they did, they would be members of the same clan. On the evidence that there are seven clans at Avatime Gbadzeme each clan must have an ancestor of its own. The fact that at some point in time members of the Osetu clan have occupied the stool of the Kofime clan does not create a rotatory system between the Kofime and the Osetu for the Kofime stool by whatever name it is called.

I am satisfied that the judicial committee of the National House of Chiefs was right and would dismiss this appeal.

(sgd) FRANCOIS JSC

(sgd) AIKINS JSC

HAYFORN-BENJAMIN JSC. The judgment just read by my learned and respected brother Amua-Sekyi JSC has my entire approbation and I will also dismiss the appeal.

Two matters, however, commend themselves to me for emphasis. The first is the position of the queenmother within the intendment of the Chieftaincy Act 1970 (Act 370) and the next, the concept of the rotatory nature of some stools or skins within our municipality. It seems to me that in our march towards civilisation custom and customary practices may become blurred. It therefore becomes necessary when a court such as this is presented with the opportunity to re-state the custom or the customary practice to do so with all the emphasis at its command in order to prevent charlatans and usurpers from bending custom and thereby creating confusion or dilute our time-honoured institution of chieftaincy.

I am therefore impelled to discuss, briefly, the concept of the queenmother as a chief because it seems to me that this traditional office was first included in the definition of a chief by article 181 of the 1979 Constitution and is repeated in article 177 of the 1992 Constitution, denominated the Fourth Republican Constitution. Consequently, a queenmother is a chief if she satisfies the same tests as would apply to a male chief. The tests are sufficiently set out in the Constitution and the Chieftaincy Act 1971 (Act 370) and require no repetition here. The further consequence is that once a queen-mother satisfied these tests any matter affecting her becomes a “cause or matter affecting chieftaincy” and is justiciable before the appropriate chieftaincy tribunal.

In the present appeal the issue of the occupant of the queenmother stool was raised and determined by the chieftaincy tribunal of the Volta Region House of Chiefs. The respondents in this court contend that it was agreed between themselves and the appellants that the issue would not be raised before us. But the appellants have raised the issue by their Additional Ground 4. The appellants chide the National House of Chiefs and contend that the National House failed to find in their favour on this issue for “the unacceptable reason that the claim for queenmother’s post had been abandoned, when this had in fact not been done.” The appellants therefore submitted that “the evidence on record about the queenmother supported the defendants contention that they had blood relation with the paternal line that ascends the mankrado stool.” (Emphasis mine.)

Reading the record as a whole it is clear the tribunals below were quite clear in their minds that they were dealing with a patrilineal system of chiefship. The judicial committee of the Volta Region House of Chiefs made this distinction between the patrilineal and the matrilineal systems. For the matrilineal system the committee relied on the authoritative treatise of Dr J B Danquah on Akan Law and Customs at page 27 of which the learned author states:

“The queenmother or Ohemaa in the Akan system is either a mother, aunt, sister or cousin to the reigning Omanhene or Ohene, who has been duly elected to and installed in that office by the same people who elect and install the Omanhene or Ohene.

She is a recognised head of the Royal family, she owns stool herself. She is the nominal chief of all the women in the state. She sits in council on the immediate left of the Omanhene ...”