Anyone who says 2003 Supreme Court ruling wasn’t a judgment is just being a mere propagandist.
What does the ruling say in simple terms? The plaintiff has the liberty to withdraw but has no liberty to reapply under PNDCL 75 and article 270 and 277 of the 1992 constitution of Ghana.
Before the propagandist get to understand that, there was a ruling, one need to know what article 270 and 277 of the 1992 says;
(1) The institution of chieftaincy, together with its traditional councils as established by customary law and usage, is hereby guaranteed.
(2) Parliament shall have no power to enact any law which-
confers on any person or authority the right to accord or withdraw recognition to or from a chief for any purpose whatsoever; or
in any way detracts or derogates from the honour and dignity of the institution of chieftaincy.
Article 277 of the 1992 Constitution of Ghana defines?chief? as a person, who, hailing from the appropriate family and lineage, has been validly nominated, elected or selected and enstooled, enskinned or installed as a chief or queen mother in accordance with the relevant customary law and usage.
Bawku skin is already occupied by Zugraan, Abugrago Azoka 11 who the Mamprusis challenged and failed. The court gave a ruling that, the mamprusis have no liberty to challenge Zugraan Bawku Naba Asigri Abugrago Azoka 11 under article 270 and 277 of the constitution. This judgement was a stub at their back since they can’t challenge the legitimacy of the skin anywhere.
Because of the clear judgment, mamprusis in Bawku have no option than to be challenging with firearms. If indeed, they think it wasn’t a judgment, they could go back to court rather than using firearms.
The Challenge is on, just head back to court and stop the warmongering .