Alavanyo Paramount Queen Backs Asantehene: The Debate on Including Queenmothers in Houses of Chiefs

Keywords: Asantehene, Queenmothers, Houses of Chiefs, Ghana Chieftaincy, Mamaga Ametor II, Customary Law, Traditional Governance, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, National House of Chiefs.

Introduction

The governance of traditional areas in Ghana is currently the subject of intense discourse following a significant declaration by the Paramount Queen of the Alavanyo Traditional Area, Mamaga Ametor II. In a move that highlights the complexities of customary law versus modern advocacy, Mamaga Ametor II has publicly aligned herself with the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II. Their unified stance opposes recent proposals aimed at integrating queenmothers into the formal structures of the National and Regional Houses of Chiefs. This article explores the nuances of this debate, examining the arguments for preserving the distinct roles of traditional leaders and the potential risks of altering long-standing constitutional institutions.

Key Points

Background

The Chieftaincy institution in Ghana is a dual entity, rooted in both customary tradition and the 1992 Constitution. The National House of Chiefs and Regional Houses of Chiefs serve as appellate bodies and policy-makers on customary law and succession. Historically, these houses have been composed of recognized chiefs, often referred to as Ohene or Odehye.

However, recent years have seen a growing movement by various associations advocating for the formal inclusion of queenmothers (often known as Ohemaa or Maame) into these legislative houses. Proponents of this inclusion argue for gender parity and the recognition of the substantial political and social influence queenmothers wield in their communities. They view exclusion as a form of discrimination that undermines the modern drive for female empowerment.

Conversely, traditionalists argue that the structure of the Houses of Chiefs is not about gender equality but about the specific jurisdiction of the Abusuapanyin (clan heads) and paramount chiefs who hold the customary authority to legislate on land and tradition. The Asantehene, as the overlord of the Ashanti Kingdom and a pivotal figure in Ghanaian chieftaincy, has been a vocal guardian of these traditional boundaries. His resistance to the inclusion of queenmothers in the Houses of Chiefs is based on the preservation of the specific customary mandates that define the two roles.

Analysis

The statement by Mamaga Ametor II introduces a critical female perspective to the debate, countering the narrative that the exclusion of queenmothers is inherently anti-woman. Her analysis rests on three pillars: Separation of Powers, Institutional Confusion, and Customary Sovereignty.

Separation of Powers in Traditional Governance

Mamaga Ametor II argues that the Houses of Chiefs are not “political laboratories.” This metaphor suggests that experimental social policies should not be applied to ancient institutions. In traditional Akan and Ewe governance (relevant to Alavanyo), the Queenmother acts as the moral guardian and the “kingmaker.” She regulates the behavior of the chief and the royal family. The Chief, however, sits in the council to administer the state and adjudicate disputes. By pushing for queenmothers to sit in the House of Chiefs, there is a risk of blurring these lines, potentially creating conflicts of interest where the moral regulator is also the legislative administrator.

The Argument Against “Institutional Confusion”

The Paramount Queen describes the push for inclusion as “institutional confusion.” This is a pedagogical point about organizational structure. Every institution has a specific mandate. The National House of Chiefs deals with legal disputes regarding destoolment, skins, and customary law. Queenmothers, according to Mamaga Ametor II, have a different mandate: planning on lineage, succession, and community welfare. Merging these distinct functions into one legislative body could dilute the effectiveness of both roles. She posits that seeking entry into the Chiefs’ House is not true empowerment, but rather a misunderstanding of where queenmothers’ power actually lies.

Rejection of External Agitation

A sharp critique in the Queen’s address is directed at “pressure groups” and “associations” that bypass established traditional structures. The analysis here suggests that true traditional authority comes from within the system—through consensus and precedent—not from external activism. By framing the debate as a clash between “traditional law” and “activism,” Mamaga Ametor II signals that the traditional system is capable of evolving, but only on its own terms.

Practical Advice

For stakeholders, including queenmothers, traditional leaders, and policy observers, the following practical steps are derived from the discourse:

1. Focus on Strengthening Existing Roles

Instead of fighting for entry into the Houses of Chiefs, queenmothers are advised to consolidate their power within their existing domains. This includes rigorously monitoring succession processes and ensuring the moral rectitude of their communities, roles that are highly respected but currently outside the legislative House.

2. Establish Independent Chambers

The Paramount Queen proposes a constructive alternative: the creation of Regional Houses or Chambers of Queenmothers. This would allow queenmothers to formalize their own governance structures, pass their own resolutions, and interact with the Houses of Chiefs on a diplomatic level, rather than as junior members. This approach promotes parallel empowerment rather than forced integration.

3. Respect Constitutional and Customary Order

Stakeholders should recognize that the Houses of Chiefs are constitutional bodies (under the Chieftaincy Act). Altering their composition requires more than just advocacy; it requires legal and customary consensus. The advice is to engage in dialogue within the traditional councils rather than seeking legislative shortcuts that could destabilize the institution.

4. Avoid Politicization

Mamaga Ametor II warns against “political experimentation.” Traditional leaders should ensure that the chieftaincy institution remains insulated from partisan politics. Any changes to the composition of the Houses should be driven by the need to preserve the institution’s integrity, not to satisfy political agendas.

FAQ

Conclusion

The intervention by Mamaga Ametor II adds a vital layer to the chieftaincy debate in Ghana. By backing the Asantehene, she emphasizes that the preservation of the institution’s integrity is paramount. The debate is not merely about gender representation, but about the careful maintenance of customary laws that have governed communities for centuries. The path forward, as suggested by the Paramount Queen, lies in recognizing the distinct strengths of queenmothers and empowering them to build their own robust institutions, rather than diluting the specific mandate of the Houses of Chiefs. As she eloquently stated, “The integrity of chieftaincy must not be negotiated.”