PROJECT REPORTS 9. THE ASHANTI RESEARCH PROJECT List of Stool Histories (continued from Research Review V o l . 1. N o . 2 .) IAS 81 IAS 82 IAS 83 IAS 84 IAS 85 IAS 86 IAS 87 IAS 88 IAS 89 IAS 90 IAS 91 IAS 92 IAS 93 IAS 94 IAS 95 IAS 96 IAS 97 IAS 98 99 IAS 100 IAS IAS 101 102 IAS 103 IAS 104 IAS IAS 105 106 IAS 107 IAS IAS 108 Nsenie Stool History Ofoase Stool History Somi Stool History Ayebiakyere Stool History Fumesua Stool History Ofiri and Manso Stool History Sewuah Stool History Adwaase Stool History Adanse Paramount Stool History Obuokrom Stool History Baamu Stool History Danpomu Stool History Nkaniasehene Stool History Essienimpong Stool History Adonten Stool History Abenase Stool History Hiawu Stool History Amoaman Stool History Anwomase Stool History Kronko Stool History Gyenyaase Stool History Nkawie-Kuma Stool History Nfensi Stool History Mmagyegyefuo Stool History Besiase Stool History Akyempim Stool History Nyinahin Stool History Nkarawa Stool History [M-M- k* -4 10. PROJECT REPORTS List of Stool Histories continued:- V • IAS IAS IAS IAS IAS IAS IAS IAS IAS IAS IAS IAS 109 110 III 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 Suma Stool History Kenyase Stool History Adwumakaasi Stool History History of the Kumasi Zongo Community Kyeneyekyenfuo Stool History Stool History of the Asantehene's Prempeh Drum Sekyedomase Stool History Kumasi Wangara Stool History Duase Stool History Kotei Stool History Pekyi No. 1 Stool History Pekyi No.2 Stool History 'f- PROJECT REPORTS 11. SUMMARIES OF ASANTEHENE'S COURT RECORDS Continued from Review Vol. I. N o . 2. Serial No. Year of Case IAS 21 1944 IAS 22 1944 IAS 23 1944 Judgment for the defendant in a case in which both plaintiff and defendant alleged that their origin and status had been degraded by the imputation of slave connections.* A case of withheld allegiance and right to a stool: the Secretary of State for Native Affairs rules that allegiance depends on residence and that strangers ought to pay tribute to the chief of their new domicile. A share in the payment of the debts of a stool validates both social and political status: a denial of a right to a person so entitled implies a doubt as to his origins and is subject to damages. The plaintiff is awarded damages against the defendant in this case. Summaries of the Records in this and subsequent issues will illustrate the principles of Ashanti Law where they appear in the proceedings and decisions - K. Arhin. 12. PROJECT REPORTS Summaries of Asantehene's Court Records continued. Serial No. Year of Case IAS 24 1945 IAS 25 1948 IAS 26 1936 Segments of a lineage may sever their kinship bonds "twa Icahyire mu"; such a severance may be expressed by non- participation Sn funeral celebrations involving one party and even a public feast during such celebrations. The plaintiff in this Great Oath case successfully claims the right to bury her own brother as against the defendant ( the head of her matrilineage, on the ground thqt her predecessors and his had "atwa kahyire mu" at the Asantehene's court. The elders of Pekyi No.l secure the destoolment of their chief on the grounds that he had been convicted as a criminal, and that in the course of his day as a prison convict, he had defiled his person and stool in that his sandals had been removed, he had also removed and carried faeces and urine pans from the cell, and that- he had subsequently failed to slaughter sheep to cleanse his person and stool. These activities were held to be 'repugnant' to custom. Arbitrators in an enquiry decide that neither by Ashanti nor Muslim law can a person claim rights to the property of a deceased son of a father's brother. -V - ** % *• -• ??>•! ' It PROJECT REPORTS 13. Summaries of Asantehene's Court Records continued. Serial No. Year of Case IAS 27 1935 4 IAS 28 1935 IAS 29 1937 Defendants plead, and are found, guilty for "putting" the Agogohene "into fetish" i.e. cursing him. The Agogohemaa or queenmother of Agogo, one of the defendants, is destooled on that ground. The plaintiff discovers in court that her supposed co-wife, and not herself, is* the real wife: the court, for this reason, rejects her claims from the co-wife and defendant, on the ground that the latter had deprived her of her 'matrimonial rights'1. The court decides after hearings on destoolment charges that the Odilcro of Fawohoyeden cannot be destooled because only three of the charges were proven; these were: failure to take proper care of a national shrine under his charge; failure to increase stool farms; making improper use of money intended for sacrifices to the land and 'fetish1. The court decides that they can not, in any case, destool the chief because the leader of the opposition is himself a 'Royal! of the Stool1 and should not have led the destoolment move: 'Only the Elders of a town or a village, are in accordance with Native Law and Custom, entitled to depose elect or instal a Chief orOdikro'. 14. PROJECT REPORTS Summaries of Asantehene's Court Records continued. Serial No. Year of Case IAS 30 1936 IAS 31 1946 IAS 32 1946-47 Defendant is convicted and jailed for 'cheating' and stealing1. The case is interesting for the relentless efforts of the defendant to get the case transferred from the Asantehene's court and his subsequent appeals through the higher courts. 'A royal is one whose ancestor had established or founded a village1 and the clearest proof of such an establishment is the existence of a stool 'blackened' in memory of the founder. The plaintiff in this case successfully claims the Sekyedumasi stool by clearly establishing his genealogical relationship in the maternal line with the first chief of Sekyedumasi whose stool was 'blackened'. Upon the request of his Elders, the Chief of Ofoase is destooled by the Kumasi Divisional Council for 'unlawfully' insulting his elders, for 'cruelty' towards his subjects, for a neglect of his political duty in failing to report a Great Oath Case to the Asantehene, - in sum, for his lack of 'political sagacity'. PROJECT REPORTS 15. Summaries of Asantehene's Court Records continued. # • • -• -*-« Serial No. Year of Case IAS 33 1946 IAS 34 1937 IAS 35 1937 IAS 36 1948 A stool created by an Asantehene would 'naturally' have an Qbaapanyin or a queenmother's stool attached to it; arguing from this principle of Ashanti law, the Ashanti Confederacy Council sustains the claim of the Anamakohene that his stool had had an Obaapanyin since its creation by Nana Osei Bonsu Panyin • (c. 1800-1824). The Gonjas in Kumasi petition the Asantehene to recognize for them a headman who would sit on the restored Ashanti Confederacy Council. The Kumasi State Council quash a move to depose the Agogohene, holding that 'it is not constitutional or customary to depose an occupant of a stool because some of the (attached) black stools are missing1. The Kumasi Divisional Council sustains a complaint by the Chief of Odumase No.2 (superior) against the Odikro (chief) of Sunyani (subordinate) that the latter erred in threatening the former with violence if he dared visit Sunyani: the Council states that it is against both 'native custom and British justice1 to attempt to stop such a visit. IAS 37 1952 The State Council exonerates the Banramahene from a charge of 'liar1. 16. PROJECT REPORTS Summaries of Asantehene's Court Records continued. Serial No. Year of Case IAS 38 1952 IAS 39 1954 IAS 40 1955 The Barihene obtains an assurance from the Odikro of Akrodie that the latter would account fro the tribute, nto, collected from Akrodie lands and pass on the shares of the Barehene and the Asantehene; he would also not 'alienate' lands for farming without the permission of the Barehene. The right to bury a person, in doubtful cases, establishes kinship with the person and also ownership of a slave or a pawn. In this Great Oath Case, the Kumasi State Council upholds the exclusive right of the plaintiff to bury a deceased person and correlatively his right in persona over her matri-kin and descendants as against the defendant. In this case, the complaint A male stool creates the corresponding female stool; an obaapanyin or queenmother cannot summon the male elders of her political unit without the concurrence of her male counterpart. of the obaapanyin of the Akwaboa stool against the Akwaboahene is dismissed by the Kumasi State Council which rejects her claim that her stool had been brough independently from Denkyera and also asserts that she had acted 'unconstitutionally' when she attempted to summon Akwaboa elders in a dispute with the Akwaboahene without the larter's knowledge and consent. •;«*•