RE: THE CHALLENGE TO THE CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OF SENYA BERAKU STOOL LAND BY ANONA FAMILY .

 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN 

All well-meaning people of Senya Beraku 

RE: THE CHALLENGE TO THE CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OF SENYA BERAKU STOOL LAND BY ANONA FAMILY 

Regarding your circulation dated, August 1, 2021, on the subject: "RE: THE CHALLENGE TO THE CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP OF SENYA BERAKU STOOL LAND BY ANONA FAMILY", we, the Royal Anona Family intend to respond in extenso and seriatim as below:

- that per the provisions of the Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759), your name is not entered in the National Register of Chiefs (i.e you do not have gazette), which is the sine qua non for recognition by the Chieftaincy Institution of Ghana. You therefore lack the capacity to use the above letterhead, since you not yet a member of the Senya Beraku Traditional Council.

- that it is gross falsehood to say that a faction of the Krobo Anona Family called Akondoh Anona is consistently claiming right to paramount status of a chief and ownership of Senya Beraku stool land. Rather, it is the entire membership with its leadership except a misled few who have no capacity to take decisions for the Family. It is interesting that Ampabo Nenyi Kweku Issiw VI is still not awake from his sleep on the 1979 judgment of the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs. The truth is that the judgment travelled from 1978 and we educate Nenyi Issiw and the public briefly as follows:

1. In the case of KWESI EBURAM AND OTHERS V. KWAKU GYAKYE AND OTHERS(1978), the Judicial Committee of the Central Regional  House of Chiefs stated in page 18 among others that, "in conclusion, we find as facts and hold as follows:-

(i) That  the Anona Royal Family of Senya Beraku is the original Royal House of Senya Beraku and founders of the State.

2. The Anona Royal Stool Family founded the Akonnor Stool and are the owners in possession of the said stool.

3. The Akonnor stool is THE STOOL i.e the Odefey stool of Senya Beraku..." Also in page 19, it was stated that, "the claim of the Petitioners is therefore allowed and (a) we declare that the next candidate selected to be enstooled as the Chief or Odefey of Senya Beraku must be chosen from the Anona Royal Family afore-mentioned and (b) we hereby order the two Asafo Companies of Senya Beraku represented herein by their Supis respectively the 3rd and 4th Respondents herein to restrict themselves to the Anona Royal Family in any procedure they may hold for the selection of the next Odefey or Chief of Senya Beraku." In summary, the Judicial Committee of the Central Regional House of Chiefs in 1978 recognized only the Anona stool as the paramount stool in Senya, and ordered that the Asafo Companies be restricted to a candidate from Anona.

(ii) Upon appeal by the Twidan Family, the National House of Chiefs, which by law has appellate jurisdiction to hear the matter held   in the case of KWESI EBURAM AND OTHERS V. KWAKU GYAKYE AND OTHERS(1979) in page 4 that, "from the reading of the record and the arguments these facts emerge undisputed:

1. There are two stools in Senya Beraku; one for Anona and the other for Twidan.

2. Anona stool was prior in time to Twidan stool.

3. Both stools have ruled and administered the state before in one way or the other..." Since the National House of Chiefs has established that there are two royal stools in Senya Beraku, it would be proper for the Twidan Family to appeal to the Supreme Court for review, if they are not satisfied with it. However, the National  House of Chiefs set aside the decision of the Regional House of Chiefs in respect  of restricting the selection of candidate for Odefey to Anona Family only, and stated in page 5 that, "from the above facts and reasons, we do not see why we should limit the choice of a candidate to Senya Beraku Paramountcy to Anona Royal Family and restrict the Asafo Companies to that end." This means that they cannot allow only the Anona Family to reign as there are two royal stools in Senya Beraku.

- that in the Supreme Court case of NENYI KOBINA ANDAKWEI IV AND OTHERS V. KOW LARBI @ KOBINA ABAKAH II AND OTHERS, two issues were raised in page 4 as: (i) whether  or not the long absence of Nenyi Kwaku Issiw VI from Senya Beraku constitutes abandonment/abdication rendering the Senya Beraku Stool vacant?

(ii) whether or not the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents rightly installed the 4th Respondent as the Paramount Chief of Senya Beraku? The Supreme Court held in page 14 that, the Stool was not vacant, and that, the purported installation of another person is null and void. It is fair to conclude in the above case that, the Supreme Court never said there is only one stool in Senya Beraku. Also, no portion of this judgment declared title of Senya Beraku land to the Twidan Stool which is supported by a bogus oral history premised on total falsehood.

- that as to which of the two stools has allodial interest in Senya Beraku land, below are some of the grounds to substantiate the claim:

1. Judgement of the Concessions Court as captured in the document (letter) dated 18th August, 1913 from the Provincial Commissioner's Office covering  certified copies of the proceedings in the Concession Enquiries which was held at Accra before Sir Brandford Griffith in April 1902. This document indicates that, (i) Nenyi Issiw II granted six concessions of Senya Beraku lands to Mr. George Macdonald, and (ii) the certificates of validity to the said concessions were opposed by the Anona Family. The Concession Court held that, half of the proceeds be given to Anona Family and other half to the Chief and people of Senya Beraku. This shows clearly that the land of Senya Beraku belongs to the Anona Royal Stool. Again, in the archival document(letter) from the District Commissioner's Office, Winnebah dated, 28th January, 1913 reveals in paragraph 3 that Anona Family claimed all the land of Senya Beraku, and allowed for the enstoolment of Issiw III, if only it does not carry with it the right to the land. In paragraph 4, the writer was clear that the question of ownership of the land was settled in High Court, Accra when Issiw II was reigning.

2. Enquiry Into The Constitution Of The Division Of Gomoa and Other Divisions In The Winneba District held by J.T. Furley, Secretary For Native Affairs, Under Commission Dated 5th October, 1922. Undeniably, it is captured in the said document where Nenyi Kweku Issiw III who represented as Principal Witness of Senya Beraku acknowledged before J.T. Furley Commission that, AKONDOH and AMARTEY SARFO first discovered and settled in Senya Beraku. Nenyi Issiw III unequivocally asserted in page 2, line 24 and 25 that, "we brought the stool with us. We originally only had one Stool." Here, though Nenyi Issiw III was from Twidan Family, he clearly made it known concerning which of the Stools or Families own Senya Beraku lands, and that, he was emphatic that it is the Anona Stool, since the stool that founded the land owns it.

3. In The Matter Of The Stool Lands Boundaries Dispute between: James Town Ngleshie Amanfro Stool, Papaase Stool, Odupong Ofankor Stool, Gomoah Fetteh Stool, Awutu Stool, and Senya Beraku Stool(1984, 1995, and 2018). In 2018, the High Court, Accra entered judgement in favour of Senya Beraku, which judgment clearly indicates that the land of Gomoah Fetteh belongs to Senya Beraku. Unequivocally, this was a stool land boundaries dispute case, so the question is, which of the two stools in Senya represented Senya Beraku? Obviously it was the Anona stool. If indeed Senya Beraku was represented by Anona stool, then it is logical for any right thinking native of Senya to ask,

(i) does one have the locus standi to legally contest a case he has no right to? (ii) why would Anona Stool represent Senya if it has no title (ownership) to Senya Beraku lands (iii) why didn't the Twidan Stool represent Senya in this matter?

The TRUTH is that this stool lands boundaries dispute  lasted for 40  years  or thereabouts, and that over the years, it was the Anona Family led by Nenyi Nicholas Tetteh who, with the family resources, fought the legal battle and brought victory to Oma Senya.

- that it is rather unfortunate to hear a chief who has reigned since 1985 that he has now started a research into the history of the traditional area he rules. This is funny, if you ask me. If your so-called research was properly done with objectivity, would you now say the Agonas founded our beloved town? Nenyi, the people of Senya Beraku are so disappointed in you and ceaselessly blame the conspirators who orchestrated to enstool you. What can you boast of achieving for Senya for the thirty-six years of ruling over the people? You need to be serious and stop propagating such immaterial history of Senya Beraku. Can you tell the people of Senya Beraku your ambitions if not for the sale of lands and pocketing it? Tell the world if you have a history as Twidan Family.

- that you are the reason for the sordid past Senya Beraku has recorded. Our people entrusted you with the paramountcy but desecrated the sacredness therewith, and now, the effect of which is what we are suffering as a people. It is very sarcastic that you are calling for an act that avoids the past mistakes. This is because, the contrary is what you are known for in real life.

Copied