Abstract
The purpose of the research paper was to trace the origin of chieftaincy among the Waala of the Upper West Region of Ghana as well as discuss the emergence of the Wa chieftaincy conflict. The Waala monarchy and the Wa Naa are the custodians of Waala customs and culture which provide transparent processes for the choice of a new Wa Naa and other leaders and for any conflicts arising thereof. Chieftaincy disputes tend to be overlooked by the authorities expected to resolve them; probably because they perceive such conflicts as tractable and not complex. There are provisions within Waala society and in the Kingdom for indigenous means of dispute resolution that have been relegated to the background. The origin of chieftaincy among the Waala has been traced while the perceived causes of the Wa chieftaincy conflict has been discussed. This research paper is part of my PhD thesis that was submitted to the university but has not been published.
Highlights
Chieftaincy institution has been in existence in Ghana for hundreds of years; serving a crucial role in the country’s traditional governance and socio-cultural systems
The term Waala refers to the natives of Wa in the Upper West Region of Ghana
Explaining the situation, a key informant indicated that, “the Waala chieftaincy system was such that the most senior prince was often enskinned as Wa Naa and since majority of the senior princes were from the Yijihi gate, they were often enskinned as chiefs of Wa”
Summary
Chieftaincy institution has been in existence in Ghana for hundreds of years; serving a crucial role in the country’s traditional governance and socio-cultural systems. Centralised, hierarchical states as it is found among some southern Ghana's ethnic groups like the Akans’ and northern Ghana's Nanumba, Maprusi, Dagomba, Wala and Gonja (Nabila, 2006:4) represented the second form of traditional governance In this system, traditional authority was held by the chief (Tuurey, 1982:38). Chieftaincy in the Waala society has always been centralised and that was why the British colonial administration had to depend on it to have unfettered access to the north-west province in the colonial era It is based on the recognition of the important roles chiefs have played in the governance system from the pre-colonial period to the current postcolonial dispensation that the architects of the 1992 Constitution decided to guarantee the chieftaincy institution in Article 270 (1). While the chief continues to undertake his traditional responsiblities, he acts as the most important interface between his subjects and the central government
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
