RESEARCH REVIEW NS VOL.6 N0.2 1990 THE NATIVE JURISDICTION ORDINANCE, INDIRECT RULE AND THE SUBJECT'S WELL-BEING: THE ABUAKWA EXPERIENCE C1899 -1912 R. Addo-Fening Up to the proclamation of the Gold Coast Colony, the policy of the British Government was to allow the kings of the Gold Coast Colony 'to exercise jurisdiction without control, except that provided by appeal...'1 The 1865 commission which enquired into the operations of the judicial system in the Gold Coast Colony advised mat 'the chiefs should be rather left to exercise their own jurisdictions with only an appeal when necessary to the English magistracy.'2 It criticised the Judicial Assessor for superseding the authority of the longs *by decisions according to his own sole judgement' and for introducing 'needless technicalities and expense in connection with the employment of Attorneys.1-* Both the Supreme Court Ordinances of 1853 and 1866 recognised the Protected Kings' right of jurisdiction over their subjects, and in 1874 Lord Carnavon, in disavowing the attempted abolition of the jurisdiction of protected kings by the Officer Administering the government, made it clear that he was 'not disposed to consider the exercise of civil jurisdiction by King Tackie as a usurpation on his part"* The supreme Court Ordinance (1876) did not only make Her Majesty's jurisdiction co-existent with the jurisdiction of protected kings.5 It even sanctioned the use of imprisonment by the chiefs to enforce decrees of their courts without setting a limit as to its duration.^ From 1880, a change in the attitude of the Colonial Government towards the autonomy of the protected kings became discernible. Henceforth a calculated attempt was made to subvert the traditional courts and usurp the sovereignty of protected chiefs. The volte face can be explained primarily by the persistent allegations of abuses in the traditional courts. These included ruinous fines, physical torture, bribery, miscarriage of justice and long periods of detention in native prisons J Such reports, substantiated or not, outraged the sense of justice of colonial officials and some of them began to press for the extinction of the judicial authority of protected kings in furtherance of 'the cause of humanity and justice.'^ The example of the coastal towns where the people tended to 'obey a judicial commissioner as much as ... their chiefs' and even feared his 'power to a greater extent naturally' because of the support of an armed constabulary, conjured up in official minds visions of direct rule. W. Brandford Griffith, Ag. Queen's advocate confidently predicted: As... civilization reaches the inland towns the power of the chiefs will go as it has gone on the coast... The native chiefs will lose their power and more District Commissioners will have to be appointed to the interior districts... and we shall rule the people through the District Commissioner as on the coast instead of depending on the tottering and uncertain power of the chiefs? In the meantime administrative controls were instituted from 1883 to regulate the judicial authority of the native kings. Foremost among them was the re-enactment of the Native Jurisdiction Ordinance (1878) as Native Jurisdiction Ordinance (1883). Under the NJO (1883) the judicial power of the kings ceased to be inherent. Henceforth it became derivative. On the one hand, the NJO made kings liable to removal by Government for gross abuse of power. On the 29 other, it empowered them to make bye-laws with the approval of the Governor 'for promoting the peace, good order, and welfare of the people', and 'conferred' upon them civil and criminal jurisdiction 'in the causes and matters approved under the bye-laws.' Penalties were prescribed for breaches of the bye-laws and the courts of the kings became courts of first instance. As such, a case heard by a king's court could not be re-heard by a District Commissioner's court unless leave to appeal was granted by the Commissioner for Native Affairs. *0 Initially only four states in the Eastern Province were proclaimed under the NJO (1883). These were Akuapem (under king Kwame Fori), Shai (under Awah), Yilo (Western) Krobo (under king Akrobetto) and Manya (Eastern) Krobo (under king Sakitey).^ Conspicuously missing from the list was Akyem Abuakwa whose king was 'probably the most powerful chief of the protectorate.'12 There were several reasons for the omission of Akyem Abuakwa from the proclamation. First as king Amoako Atta I was in exile in Lagos from May 1880 to March 188S his state was without an effective political and judicial head.1^. Second, the Government had a low opinion of the Okyenhene whom they considered to be 'a drunken, unscrupulous man.'14. Third, and most important, the proclamation of a state under the NJO (1883) was regarded from the onset as a reward and a mark of favour 'granted only to chiefs who were recognized to be loyal and intelligenL'15 In the eyes of the Colonial Government Amoako Atta's loyalty was suspect as attested by his persistent harrassment of Christians in his state and his continued involvement in slave dealing in defiance of repeated warnings. **> The exclusion Akyem Abuakwa from the purview of the NJO (1883) had serious political, social and economic consequences for the Okyenhene and his sub-chiefs in the last two decades of the 19th century. From 1884 the English courts regarded native courts not registered under NJO (1883) as arbitrator's court only. Judges repeatedly told protected kings outside the ambit of the NJO (1883) that they held court and imprisoned people 'at their peril.' On more than one occasion the governor 'intimated that he could not recognize judicial power in die chiefs except under the Native Jurisdiction Ordinance.' District Commissioners, taking their cue from the Supreme Court and the Governor, refused 'to recognise or give any effect' to the judgements of native courts not approved under the NJO.17 In October 1887 the Full Court in the case of Opon vers. Acfdnnie, held that the Supreme Court Ordinance (1876) 'in no way impaired the judicial power of Native Chiefs' and that no subsequent ordinance had 'taken them away.'18 Consequently a Protected king was entitled to exercise over his subjects in his court the jurisdiction which belonged to him 'according to native law, including the power to enforce bis judgements in the manner authorized by native law ~.'19. Notwithstanding mis judgement, the English courts and colonial officials continued to treat the courts of native longs without the powers of the NJO (1883) as before. In the same month that judgement was given in die case of Opon vers. Ackinnie the Colonial Government increased its administrative control of Akyem Abuakwa by constituting the state into the administrative districts of 'Eastern Alrim, by an order-in-council dated 6 October 1887. The first District Commissioner for the district, Captain H.B. Lethbridge, was instructed to take up permanent residence at Asafo or Begoro and 'make it known throughout Eastern Akim that a District Commissioner's court is now open for hearing of all cases.™ The unfavourable attitude of the English courts and the Government, coupled with the presence in Akyem Abuakwa of a British court which not only offered the people an alternative venue for the redress of wrongs but also had power to rehear cases already decided by the Okyenhene,'on the ordinary court fees being paid,' could not but be subversive of traditional authority. In August 1886 one Ayimadu of Asiakwa forbade his niece Akua Ago to pay a fine of £5 imposed 30 on her by Nifancoc Kwaku Amo. He not only refused to obey me summons of the Okyenhene's court to appear and explain his conduct, but also toM the royal messengers that the king had "no power to call him in [his] court,' and that he would have "nothing at all' to do with his court.21 The king indignantly complained to the government only to be told that Ayimadu was 'within his rights' as chiefs 'not possessing powers under NJO could only act as arbitrators.122 In December 1888 Odikro Yaw Tawia of Kade ignored summons from the Okyenhene's court in connection with an oath case and appealed to the District Commissioner for support.2^ The District Commissioner did nothing to uphold the king's authority even though the king's jurisdiction in oath cases was undoubted. By contrast, the government encouraged the king's subjects to bring criminal summons against him in the British courts for assault, torture, aad wrongful arrest. • In 1888 king Amoako Atta Us messengers were assaulted at Asamama when they attempted to arrest one Baafoo Boansi. Boansi subsequently applied for criminal summons against the Okyenhene's messengers and was awarded £10 damages by the District Commissioner's court at Begoro.24 Kwadwo Essel went to Accra in September 1890 to complain of assault and wrongful imprisonment on the king's orders. He was urged to press charges against the king but he declined.2^ in June 1893 king Amoako Atta II was tried by J.R. Philips, District Commissioner for Accra and convicted of 'assault occasioning actual bodily harm' to Kwaku Mabreh. He was fined £25.26 By the end of the 19th century central authority in Akyem Abuakwa was at the verge of collapse. Sub-chiefs and subjects alike showed gross disrespect to the king by walking out of his court in the middle of a hearing, by publicly insulting him, or by assaulting his messengers. The seemingly indulgent attitude of the government towards the citizenry of Akyem Abuakwa helped to undermine the authority of the traditional rulers and encourage habits of indiscipline and independence on the part of subjects. This coupled with the economic opportunities of an era of legitimate trade promoted a radical transformation of the village and town a « /o organizations. The traditional asafo had been a passive, subservient, adhoc organization originally created by the Chiefs and Elders to carry out their bidding. Evolved primarily as an instrument of warfare, the asafo in Akyem Abuakwa comprised all able-bodied men in a village or town other than occupants of stools who were the councillors of the chief or Odikro (village chief)! Outside of warfare, the asafo fulfilled ceremonial roles in connection with enstoolment and destoolments and carried out searches for missing persons or hunted game for the celebration of festivals. The leader of the asafo was the asafoakye, an appointee of the chief and his council, who held office at their pleasure. As a body, the asafo enjoyed no direct representation on the chiefs' council.27 From about 1875 the asafo underwent a gradual transformation in composition, leadership and orienmtkm d^ to the political, social and economic revolutions of the late 19th century. By the turn of the 20th century the asafo revealed a considerable ethnic diversity. The emancipation Act of 1874 had liberated slaves who were mainly 'foreigners - Kwahus, Asantes and nnonkofo or people from the interior.2^ Some of these ex-slaves had gone to the coast or Akuapem but the majority, tike Petro Obaako of Eankyeneko, 'a slave from Hausa country', and Yaw Broni an Asante slave brought to Anyinam as a child, made the state their domicile. Such ex-slaves took to trade or farming 'which no-one hinders in view of plentiful land available.1^ The influx of exiles and migrant cocoa fanners into Akyem Abuakwa from the 1870s turned the state into a sort of cultural or ethnic melting pot It was from this mixed group of Akyem, Asante, Akuapem, Ga and northern peoples that the new asafo drew its membership. Henceforth the motivation for asafo action and the basis of solidarity were provided, not by ethnicity, but by a shared sense of political and economic grievance or social interests. 31 Asafo membership did not only reveal ethnic diversity. It also showed a certain degree of social differentiation. Within the ranks of the ascfo were to be found Christian and noo-christiffli, educated and illiterate, rich and poor. From the 1870s the growth of a modern money market increased the money requirements of the people considerably. Money was required to pay for the expenses of funerals, marriage, education etc.3O Consequently it became fashionable for most citizens "to go off and trade as soon as one has a few thaler.'31 Participation in internal distributive trade brought increasing wealth to several individuals as manifested by the erection of fine buildings and acquisiton of a wide range of personal possessions. By 1880 a trader of Asuom already owned 'a beautiful livable house with veranda unique in Akyem.'32 Among individual citizens who accummulated considerable private wealth through trade were Ntim of Begoro, James Kwaku Ashmore of Asamankese, John Boafo of Abomosu, Twum of Kyebi, John Wilson Boobae of Apiraman and Kofi Johnson (Kofi Twum) of Asafo. By 1880 Ntim was already a wealthy man and well-known money-lender with approximately £450 invested in 60 pawns of both sexes.33 An unnamed man of Abomosu reputed to be 'the richest man in Akyem' hi 1888 exploited his wealth to secure the hand of the king's sister, Amma Kyerewaa, in marriage.34 Trade was not the only source of wealth for the emergent "moneyed class." Cash-crop farming, especially in kola nut and rubber, enriched the people of Tumfa, Asuom, Abomosu, Osenase, Gyadambiremso, Kade and Nsutam. Cocoa was also already "bringing much money to the people of... Akim ...' by 1903.35 Hundreds of individuals owned cocoa farms containing between 40 and 1000 trees. One of them, Salomo Agyei of Moseaso, already owned a cocoa farm containing some 4,000 trees (c 7 acres) by 1900.36 Food production also became commercialized with oil palm, bananas, cocoyams, plantains, beans, okro, yams, livestock and poultry being produced for the market In 1909 James Okai of Asamankese kept a flock of 160 sheep, besides poultry, on his farm.37 Opportunities for wage employment also expanded. The Bunso rubber estate of Mr. Pritchard employed 'a weekly increasing number of labourers quarted in two villages.' The presence of their labour force was already turning Bunso into 'a growing place with a market' by 1908.38 The Goldfields of Eastern Akim Ltd. also employed considerable numbers of people on its road construction from Densu (Nsawam) to Apedwa and also on its prospecting and dredging operations. 39 For the educated there were growing opportunities for employment with the Basel Mission or the Government Wealth and education changed the political and social orientation of the rising generations, and ipso facto of the asafo, in Akyem Abuakwa. The educated, largely products of the mission schools, were gradually becoming enamoured of western ways and concepts of government Contact with coastal society, and especially with lawyers, through residence, litigation or trade, undermined traditional attitudes and habits of subservience to the chiefs.40 The traditional political order appeared obsolescent in the eyes of the youth and there was a discemiWe longing for the democratization of the traditional order. Particularly the educated wanted a distinction to be made between stool (public) revenue and the private purse of the chiefs. Through contact with such 'opinion leaders' die generality of the people became gradually infected with the spirit of egalitarianism and democracy. Ex-slaves particularly became jealous of their new status and resented privilege based on birth. The new spirit was symbolised by the impunity with which an ex-slave pupil of the Kyebi boarding school ordered i member of the royalty to fetch drinking water for the dining table. [Kosaw nsu bra afei ye nyinaa ye pe - Go and fetch water we are all equal now].41 The leadership of the asafo also changed. In the traditional asafo, the asafoakye as an 32 appointee of the chief and his elders, was liable to dismissal. He was thus an instrument of the chief and his elders. From the last quarter of the 19th century the asafo asserted a right to choose their own leaders and merely present them to the chief and councillors for confirmation. Asafoakye Abam was 'elected from the able-bodied men' of Begoro in the 1870s as- was asafoakye Kwaku Nkroma of Akyease elected in 1902.42 Until the last quarter of the 19th century the main qualification for the office had been subservience and loyalty to the chief. Henceforth the desirable qualification was a combination of courage and eloquence, and sometimes wealth. Asafoakye Abam was eloquent and daring besides being a trader of considerable mcans.43 The new breed of asafoakyes enjoyed power that rivalled that of the chiefs. They also enjoyed the loyalty and confidence of the youth. The new asafo were also capable of acting independently, and in defiance of the chiefs' wishes. Abam often held meetings with the Begoio asafo on his own responsibility and initiative. Buck remarked about one such meetings: The chief was absent from the town but his presence would not have made any difference as Abam is his rival and has all the young hot heads on his side. The chief and his elders will avoid conflict with us but not mis chief elected from the able-bodied men.44 This was the nature of Abuakwa society that the Colonial Government had to confront at the turn of the 20th century at the inauguration of the policy of 'Indirect Rule.' Abuse of N J . O. (1883) In December 1900 Sir Mathew Nathan arrived in the Gold Coast Colony with instructions to implement the policy of Indirect Rule.45 This policy was dictated in the late 19th century by sheer pragmatism. The increased strain on administrative resources which accompanied the expansion of the British Empire in the 19th century made it imperative that African talent be used at the level of local government to ease colonial governments of their burdens of finance and trained personnel.4*' In Akyem Abuakwa, as elsewhere in the colony, the obvious group was the ahenfo (chiefs), the acknowledged leaders of the local communities. Nathan, however, found to his utter dismay that as a result of the colonial Government's own past attitude and policies the kings and chiefs of the protectorate had 'so little control... over their people mat he doubted if it would ever be possible to apply the policy of indirect rule ...'47 At the time of Nathan's arrival the stab of affairs was most grave in Akyem Abuakwa where Amoako Atta II had by 1899 become "a most weak and impotent person148 and was in danger of becoming a roifaineant. The extent of the political impotence of the Okyenhene is best illustrated by two incidents which occurred toward the end of 1899. On 6 August 1899 Mr. Cummings, District Commissioner for Akuse who was on a visit to Kyebi asked the king to preempt a riot by ordering one of the asafo companies involved, that of Tafo to disperse. The long frankly told the District Commissioner that *he was quite powerless and (sic) that if he ordered than to disperse the people would laught at him.1^ Again early in 1900 the response to the mobilization of Abuakwa citizens for the Yaa Asantewaa war was half-hearted owing to the king's 'want of influence.' When the Okyeman Council ultimately assembled through the personal intervention of Mr. Hull 'it was only too apparent how little weight attached to his [i.e. king's] counsels and word.' The individual chiefs 'did as they pleased and clearly showed mat they ... would recognize no central authority.'50 It was thus obvious by die end of the 19th century that some steps would have to be taken to save traditional authority in Akyem Abuakwa from total collapse if the state was to be able to play the role envisaged for chiefs under the proposed system of Indirect Rule. It was against this 33 background that a year before Nathan's arrival the Colonial Government decided to extend the operation of the NJO (1883) to Akyem Abuakwa. In April 1899 both the Attorney-General and the Colonial Secretary came to the conclusion that it would be 'desirable' to bring Akyem Abuakwa under the authority of the NJO (1883) to enable the Okyenhene 'to exercise effective criminal and civil jurisdiction over his subjects.'51 A meeting of the Executive Council on 17 May 1899 agreed to the issue of a proclamation extending he NJO to Akyem Abuakwa. The proclamation 'signed and sealed by Acting Governor William Low came into force on 1 June 1899. Amoako Atta II was informed about it by letter dated 6 June 1899.52 The extension of the NJO to Akyem Abuakwa was intended to inaugurate a new era of partnership and co-operation betwen her chiefs and the Colonial Government, a clear indication that the visions of direct rule through District Commissioners were receding. The new partnership reversed the policy of allowing 'the powers of the chiefs ... to die out' as a way of 'furthering the cause of humanity to justice,1^ a policy inspired in official circles in the 1880s by the prospect of indirect rule. The result of the betrayal of the commoner class was political and social strife in the first decade of the 20th century. Under the NJO which became the foundation of the Indirect Rule policy the Abuakwa ahenfo were empowered to exercise both civil and criminal jurisdiction. The former extended to personal suits for debts and damages not exceeding £25, suits relating to land ownership 'held under native tenure' and suits relating to inheritance of property. The Criminal jurisdiction of the chiefs extended to criminal charges such as petty assaults, wilful disobedience of the authority of a chief, or of the chiefs oath, and "knowingly offering any insult to a headchief, chief or headman.' The chiefs were also authorised to punish any violation of their bye-laws *by fine, or by personal detention, or other native punishment not repugnant with natural justice or with the principles of the law of England.'54 King Amoako Atta II was very fond of power, alcohol and money. Tall, heavy, fair- complexioned and broad-faced, he was a 'confirmed stammerer1, 'morose and irritable', 'impulsive and excitable', 'greedy avaricious and mean.'55 This king with imperious looks could not resist the temptation of using his new powers as an instrument for crushing opposition, exacting obedience, and replenishing his empty treasury. By the late 19th century and early 20th century the impecuniousness of Akyem Abuakwa chiefs stood in sharp contrast to the relative affluence of their subjects. The expenses of king Amoako Atta II's trial and exile to Lagos (1880), the fine of £450 imposed on Akyem Abuakwa in 1887 as compensation for Christian property damaged in the anti-christian riots of December 1886, the funeral expenses of Amoako Atta I (February 1887), the expenses of the Nsuaem ferry crisis of 1888, and the costs of various lawsuits had overwhelmed the state with debt.56 The ruins of the Okyenhene's new palace, 'a two storey house begun in 1875 stood as a grim advertisement of his inpecuniousness. The death of Ohemaa (queenmother) Amma Ampofoa in March 1892 added to the financial woes of the king which were only marginally relieved by a donation of £10 from the Government.5? In her very first letter to the Governor, the newly installed queenmother, Amma Kyerewa, solicited financial assistance from the Government for the 'rebuilding [of] an old house which had fallen into ruins.'58 Several chiefs were indebted to their subjects. Abomosuhene Danso who was already Tieavily in debt' in 1878 had John Boafo the 'rubber broker' from Abomosu for a creditor;59 m 1902 Odikro Duodu Kumi of Ahwenease appeared before the Okyenhene's court on a charge of failure to re-pay a loan of £2 borrowed from one of his subjects;^ to defray a debt of £100 owed to a lawyer Edmund Bannerman in legal fees in connection with the Nuaem ferry crisis of 1888, the 34 Wankyi stool had to be pledged to an Asamankese trader, James Kwaku Ashmore, for a loan at 100 percent interest;61 Odikro Kwaku Apontua of Muoso became indebted to a prosperous trader of Afigyaase called Yaw Kusi in the sum of £150 borrowed to finance a lawsuit against Odikro Buaben of Anyinam; 62 Apiramanhene Kofi Boaten I had to borrow £2.13s. Od. from Kwame Birikoran to enable him make a visit to Adasawase. A nugget of gold which he pledged for the loan was never redeemed till his death in 1905.63 To extricate themselves from their indebtedness, the Okyenhene Amoako Atta I and his chiefs attempted to collect a direct tax of 1/- per man and 6d. per woman in 1885 but they met with considerable opposition and had to abandon it after one year.64 in October 1892 Amoako Atta n, sought permission from the Colonial Government to revive this tax but he received no support He was warned that 'contributions should be voluntary and no one should on any account be compelled to contribute...^ A tax which he tried to impose on the rubber trade in 1888 was similarly disallowed. In a minute of 9 May 1890 Mr. Riby Williams was instructed to inform kings Kofi Kyinto, Asibe, and Attafua that the Governor had 'forbidden Amoakwanta of Kyebi to levy tax and consequently their people must not pay any such demand...'66 With income from court fees drastically reduced, enforcement of payment of fines by indefinite detention banned, and his power of taxation denied, Amoako Atta and his chiefs were at their wits' end when the extension of the NJO occurred out of the blue with a promise of an end to their financial woes. All over the state adikrofo (minor-chiefs) taking advantage of the absence of any specific provision in the NJO (1883) to the contrary, set up courts 'in the smallest villages' which the District Commissioner was powerless to close except with the permission of the paramount chief.6? Such courts joined the courts of the Okyenhene and his divisional chiefs in oppressing their subjects. In July 1903, one Kofi Badu acting on the orders of Tafohene Peasa, arrested Kwame Bredu and James Donkor on a charge of stealing. Donkor was acquitted after a trial in Accra and took action in the Okyenhene's court for damages against Badu for wrongful arrest. The Okyenhene's court ignored Badu's plea that he acted on the orders of the Tafohene and held that he was liable. When Badu refused to pay the damages and costs he was promptly arrested and detained in king's prison for nearly three months.6** The case of Oworae, a Christian convert of Begoro further illustrates the high-handed manner in which Amoako Atta II administered justice under the NJO. Oworae, an 'old feeble woman' was arrested and taken to Kyebi, ten hours distance, on the king's orders and convicted of witchcraft. The king took offence and detained her relatives, a man and two women, who protested against the decision and gave notice of their intention to appeal against the fine of £20 imposed. Their landlord at Kyebi who stood surety for them was imprisoned till they paid £11 out of the fine.6^ Amoako Atta spared no pretext that promised him a good income in fines. In 1907 his court imposed a fine of £16 on Joseph Boaten (alias Nkroma), a Basel Mission schoolteacher, for wrongly but inadvertently referring to the late Okyenhene Obuom as 'Baafoo.'70 in 1909 he fined the elders of Begoro £141.7s. Od. for alleged concealment of a breach of his personal oath (ntamkoko) by one Benjamin Dakwa. The penalty prescribed by a state council bye-law of March 1904 for this offence was £12 plus four sheep and two dogs. The Begoro elders paid the fine and complained to the District Commissioner of AkuapemJl The Okyenhene's dependence on court fees reached such proportions that one of his subjects remarked sarcastically that tie swore the Omanhene's oath so that the Omanhene could get chop.' For saying so the subject was fined £80.72 It was not the king alone who treated his subjects in a high-handed manner. Divisional chiefs and adikrofo were equally guilty. Nifahene Kwaku Agyei fined George Kwaku Donko of 35 Asiakwa£72 for failing to report tbe discovery of abramoo (pot of treasure) on his farm. As if that was not enough, be seized the farm in question which was made in die time of bis two predecessors on the pretext mat it had been made "near heathens burying ground", in disobedience of orders. In addition, the chief remitted, in a most arbitrary manner, a debt of £9 owed to Donkor by the informant called Osei.73 Kwaku Agyei's successor, Okoampa, fined Emmanuel Asare £25 for having 'sold a meat of sick swine' when £2 was the maximum fine allowed by the law for the offence.7^ For the poor, payment of such heavy fines could only be made by borrowing from money- lenders, some of whom like Botwe, made a living "by waiting in the princints of the Omanhene's court and advancing money at high rate of interest to the litigants to enable them pay their fines...'75 Interest rates on loans which were normally granted for periods of up to one month were as high as SO percent or more. Rev. Ad Mohr knew people who took loans of £8 and had to pay back £12 in two weeks.7^ Prior to the coming into force of the NJO (1883), Abuakwa citizens had the option of being tried in the District Commissioner's court, or the right of seeking redress directly in the English courts. From June 1899 that option or right could no longer be exercised. Amoako Atta IPs subjects were no longer free to boycott their chiefs' courts in matters within the purview of the NJO. Henceforth they were obliged to take all such cases before the court of a chief in the first instance. Nor was it easy for them to appeal readily against judgements of the Okyenhene's court without the prior approval of the commissioner for Native Affairs.77 In lieu of permanent residence of a District Commissioner in the state from 1888-1912 it was easy for the king to intimidate people into acquiescence in verdicts of his court.7** In any case many aggrieved persons would rather suffer in silence than endure the trouble and expense of travelling to Accra or Akuse to petition for a re-hearing of their cases. The exhorbitant fees charged by lawyers also made rural people "have the same dread and dislike to bringing their cases to be heard at the English courts as ... to taking them to the Native couits.'7^ Such a situation bred dispair and disaffection towards their chiefs and the colonial government Disaffection and disillusion were not only a consequence of abuse of judicial power and unreasonable fines. Sheer irresponsibility on the part of the chiefs was also a contributory factor. Akyem Abuakwa land-tenure vested ownership of land in the community as a whole. Chiefs were mere custodians.80 Some chiefs, however, seemed to think that the NJO (1883) gave them licence to do as they pleased with stool (public) property also. Nifahene Kwame Okoampa (1905-1908) sold Asiakwa stool lands to JJ. Fisher 'giving no account whatever of the sale contrary to native custom.'81 The most classic examples of irresponsibility were displayed by chiefs Gyamera and Otupiri of Begoro. During the former's two year's occupancy of the stool, (1905-1907) he 'sold stool lands to the value of heavy £3,000 and actually collected £1,732." His own account book showed '£1,232 paid of which the elders and people knew nothing.1^ Between October and November 1907 alone Gyamera sold £766 worth of lands to individual Krobos without the knowledge and consent of his elders.83 Gyamera's successor, Otupiri (1908-1913) sold £521.9s. 3d. worth of stool lands without the consent of his elders and made use of the money.84 Even more reprehensible was the manner in which revenues from the sale of stool lands and other sources were frittered away. Gyamera and Otupiri spent a good deal of stool revenues on alcoholic drinks and when they were short of money they did not hesitate to pledge stool property against drinks bought on credit.85 Nifahene Kwaku Agyei (1905-1908) was *a terrible drunkard' and 'a physical wreck from drink.' He not only saddled his people with debt but also insulted them publicly.86 Kwaku Agyei paid little attention to his duties as chief. He was 36 always in a semi-drunken state and to a degree not responsible for his action.' Travelling commissioner Phillips considered him to be 'entirely unsuited for the stool of Asiakwa.*/ Gyasehene John Robert Kwaku Oware was another alcoholic who, in his bouts of drunkeness, would take to the streets "half-naked, scorning' any elder he met and disclosing the servile origms of 'some of the citizens' much to their embarrassment and annoyance.^ Amoako Atta himself regarded Kwaku Ware as 'unfit', one chief whose destoolment he would 'unhesitatingly recommend to Government1 to confirm.89 District Commissioner Hobbs was alleged to have remarked at a public meeting that 'if all the chiefs in Eastern Aldm were like Kwaku Ware, the country would before long fall into ruins.' Such was the calibre of Abuakwa chiefs that were entrusted With wide powers under the NJO (1883) during the first decade of the 20th century. Asafo Protests The Asafo protests against abuse of power and misappropriation of public funds by chiefs began in 1900 and grew in intensity with the passage of time. The protests took several forms. One form was to withhold certain customary services to the chief. The Begoro asafo, for example, discontinued the time-honoured practice of providing free labour on the farms of the chief. Chief Gyamera as a result had to rely on hired labour to clear his cocoa ferms.90 Another was to compel chiefs to enter into some kind of bond binding them to certain courses of action, reforms, or new life styles. After the abortive destoolment of Amoako Atta II in October 1900, the Amantoomiensa asafo presented the king with a document which he was called upon to accept as a condition of his re-instatement Inter alia, die document insisted on the abolition of the oath of Ehyira, frequent consultation with the Amantomiensa, reduction of court charges, and financial accountability .91 A similar bond presented by the Begoro asafo to Gyamera in 1907 to execute, barred him from drinking and from further sales of Begoro stool lands without prior consultation with his elders.92 in September 1910 Gyasehene John Robert Oware was similarly forced to sign a document committing him 'not to touch any rum.'93 Asafo protest often took the form of asafo intervention to prevent vexatious arrest or trial of members. As severe fines and arbitrary exercise of power became a feature of the native tribunals, attendance at those tribunals became a nightmare and people avoided it if they could, with asafo support In 1902 Ohyira of Sansami (near Nsawam) refused three times to appear before the Okyenhene's tribunal to answer asuit With the help of the local asafo he attacked the king's messengers sent to arrest him and seized the handcuffs.94 At the end of the year Kwame Botwe of Tafo refused to answer the summons of the Okyenhene's tribunal telling the king's messengers that lie had consulted lawyer Papafio in Accra who had given him a note to the effect that he need not appear before any native courL^S when die king sent messengers to arrest him the Tafo company urged on by the oaths of their Captains Krodua, Dente, Boadu, Kwadwo Ben andKwabina Kuma... assaulted them and allowedBotcH to escape with his handctiffs.96 By far the most common and violent form of protest was the destoounent of chiefs. As against three recorded cases of destoolment and toee others of attempted destoolment in the 19th century97 there were no fewer than thirteen cases of destoolmeat or attempted destoolment within twelve years of the proclamation of the NJO in Akyem Abuakwa. Of these two involved the Okyenhene's stool, eight involved Divisional Chiefs (mpakanfo) and three Adikrofo. Significantly Die spate of destoohnents began with Okyenhene Amoako Atta n on October 31, 1900; He was saved by the Government's refusal to approve of *e asJfoactkw^ In November 1912 his successor Amoako Atta III (alias Kwaku Sereko) was destookd alter less than two 37 yean* ieign.99 The eight Divisional Chiefs involved in destoolment or attempted destoolment were Adontcnheoe Kofi Aberante of Kukarantumi (1901), Benkumhene Kwaku Asare of Begoro (Match 1904) Osepwuobene Kwabena Atwere of Wankyi (1905), Nifahene Kwaku Agyei of Asiakwa (1908), Benkmnbene Gyamera of Begoro (1908), Nifahene Kwame Okoampa of Asiakwa (1910), Gyaasehene Kwaku Ware of Kwaben (1910) and Takwahene Kwabena Amo of Akyease (1911). The Adikrofo were Kofi Twum of Asafo (1909), Kwabena Antwi of Osino (1910) and Kwabena Moro of Kade (1911). Government, Intervention By the beginning of 1903 a state of near anarchy prevailed in Akyem Abuakwa. Rev. A. Ph. Bauer of the Basel Mission reported early in 1903 that... 'all the Akims are unruly people. They are very obstinate, and do neither obey nor respect their chiefs, especially the youngmen.'lOO An official report in that year confirmed the incapability of the traditional authorities 'to maintain order among the youngmen in their towns.1 Wl As Asafo pressure mounted against the chiefs, they turned to the Colonial Government for protection and support In 1903 Benkumhene Kwaku Asare asked for a supply of handcuffs and authority to commit 'to prison the youngmen who are constantly playing foolish on me.'1**2 Osewuohene Kwabena Atwere also asked Government for a supply of 'a pair of handcuffs'» be used to curb the growing insubordination among his subjects.1*" At the beginning of January 1905 the Okyenhene and his chiefs sent a formal appeal to the government to strengthen their hand in dealing with asafo insubordination. We cannot but submit this application as we find that men in this district are growing very insubordinate; and cases cf contempt and disobedience of Elders and Chiefs are becoming so numerous that we venture to approach the Government with a view to augmenting our authority in stopping some—10* The government was fully aware of the profligacy of some of the chiefs as well as their habitual abuse of their powers under the NJO.105 Yet, as a Government committed to the policy of Indirect rule which rested on me effectivenes of the traditional authorities, it could ill-afford to take any steps that might in the longer term prove harmful to the authority of the Abuakwa chiefs. It therefore tended, of necessity, to stand firmly by the Okyenhene and his chiefs. In February 1903, for instance, Mr. T.E. Fell, Travelling Commissioner personally arrested Kwabena Botwe of Tafo who had resisted arrest the previous year wim the help of the Tafo asafo and took him in h*n