It appears the dust surrounding the legitimacy of Daasebre Akuamoah Agyepong II, Kwahumanhene is yet to settle as the Kwahu Abetifi Kubease Royal Etena Family still fights for the right identity to the stool.
This follows the fresh order of quo warranto secured on September 29, 2023 at the Nkawkaw High Court by Nana Otupirikwagyan II, Kubeasehene of Abetifi, Opanin Seth Kwadwo Agyemang, Opanin Kwame Debrah, Opanin Yaw Amo and Opanin Kwabena Agyei.
The order which as at the time of filing this report is yet to be served on the respondents Kwahu Traditional Council, Daasebre Akuamoa Agyapong II, Nana Asiedu Agyemang III, Kwahu Adontenhene and Nana Simpe Owiredu III, Krontihene of Abene
The plaintiffs seek to restrain the defendants by themselves, servants, agents, cohorts howsoever described from holding the upcoming “Ayie Pa” for the late Kwahumanhene Daasebre Akuamoah Boateng II which starts from Sunday November 25, 2023 to Sunday December 3, 2023.
According to the plaintiffs, the current Kwahumanhene does not hail from Abetifi Kubease Etena royal family adding that the family has the right to choose the rightful occupant of the Kwahumanhene throne.
The Kwahu Abetifi Kubease Royal Etena Family has therefore called on Kwahumanhene to stop parading himself as Kwahumanhene with an immediate effect.
Addressing the media on the court order, one of the applicants, Opanin Kwabena Agyei, who doubles as Abusuapanyin of Adwoa Ampa of Aberewatia of Etena Royal family of Abene and a farmer of house number E8-0268-3879 challenged the prerogative writ requiring the aforementioned persons to show what authority they have for exercising the right and power for the upcoming funeral celebration.
According to the Aberewatia of Etena Royal family of Abene Abusuapanyin, he is the deponent and 5th applicant herein and he have the consent and authority of the other applicants to depose to the instant affidavit on their joint behalf as well the matters are within his personal knowledge.
He continued that “that the 1st respondent is a moribund entity because Kwahuman has not been nominated and enstooled a successor to Daasebre Akuamoah Boateng II since his demise in 2013.
Notwithstanding, Abusuapanyin Agyei hinted that “the 2nd respondent is a person holding himself out as Kwahumanhene, claim which is a subject of pending suit at the National House of Chiefs and 3rd and 4th Respondents are persons holding traditional office and are now in collusion with the 2nd Respondent actively aiding and abetting him in his quest to wrestle and annex the position of Kwahumanhene”
The Abusuapanyin posited that the ‘’Dote Yie’’, a ceremony conducted for the burial of Daasebre Akuamoah Boateng II was held by the Etena Royal Family of Abetifi and Abene to which the late chief belonged during his lifetime whilst the respondents herein have absolutely no hand in the said Dote Yie because they are not members of the said Royal Family.
He explained that respondents lacked the requisite customary rite and power to organize the final funeral rites of Daasebre Akuamoah Boateng II and therefore seeks the authoritative intervention of the Court to compel the respondents to show a modicum of respect for the customary law and practice of Kwahu Traditional Council which has been observed from antiquity.
The head of the Aberewatia of Etena Royal family of Abene stated that he will contend that the Kwahu Traditional Council is under an obligation to behave in line with the customary laws and practices of the Kwahu Traditional Area and cannot disregard the customary practices of the
Kwahu Traditional Area and cannot disregard the customary practice relative to burial and funeral rites of a Kwamumanhene.
He pointed out that he was advised by Counsel and verily believe same to be true that the brazen customary aberration and illegality of the respondents ought to be halted immediately as well as advised that prerogative writs can be directed at bodies/persons recognized or created by custom.
Abusuapanyin Agyei argued that he was further advised and believe same to be true that the procedural impropriety and basic fundamental breaches of custom are subject to the prerogative writs even when there is no formal proceedings thereby making the Orders ‘’speaking orders’’.
To this, he expressed that “I am further advised by Counsel and verily believe same to be true that the plethora of fundamental legal errors and procedural impropriety are manifestly errors on the face of the record requiring the swift intervention of this honorable Court by a grant of the quo warrant to order as well an injunction restraining the respondents high writ of certiorari”.
