Connect with us


Flashback 2017: How Islamic Cleric Predicted That Donald Trump And Akufo-Addo Will Be One Term Presidents



An Islamic cleric and numerologist, Mallam Sham Una Ustaz Jibril prophesied in 2017 that Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo and his US counterpart, Donald Trump will be one-term presidents.

In a Ghanaweb publication in 2017, Mallam Sham Una also said that Akufo-Addo and Donald Trump securing second terms as presidents depended on the fortunes of Nigerian president, Muhamadu Buhari because the three have the same star and also share the same spiritual destiny in the spiritual world.

He also predicted amongst other things, an abrupt end to Buhari’s first term in office through resignation, coup d’etat, or loss of the 2019 election.

His prediction about the Nigerian President did not come to pass though as President Muhamadu Buhari retained his seat in the 2019 Nigerian Elections.

However, his prediction about US President Donald Trump appears to have come to pass, barring any extreme judicial review.

It remains to be seen what will happen with President Akufo-Addo as Ghana heads to the polls on December 7th.

Source: GhanaFeed.Com


Archives: When Akufo-Addo Defeated Tsatsu Tsikata In Court In 1980 – Read Details Here



Following yesterday’s 5:0 Supreme Court ruling in favour of Godfred Yeboah Dame against the renowned Tsatsu Tsikata, there were claims and counterclaims that President Akufo-Addo, whiles a practising lawyer, defeated Tsatsu Tsikata in court in 1980.

This portal, in order to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the claims, combed into the archives of the Ghana Law Report, specifically the [1980] GLR 3.

This portal ascertained the claims to be true that Lawyer Akufo-Addo, then as counsel for the Chief of Mampong Ashanti won in a 7:0 unanimous decision of the Supreme Court presided by Chief Justice Apaloo.

It is interesting to note that in that same year when Akufo-Addo defeated Tsatsu Tsikata in court, the two also worked together to obtain a verdict in a key matter of public interest.

The date is September 23, 1980. Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo leads a team of fine young lawyers to listen to a decision regarded then as a key matter of public interest. In constitutional law terms, it’s considered an important decision. Mr Akufo-Addo is 36 years old and he’s joined by his good friend Dr Prempeh (sounds familiar? The Prempeh in the name “Akufo-Addo Prempeh and co”), 30-year-old Tsatsu Tsikata, and other lawyers.

The ruling of that case as delivered by Justice Apaloo (JSC) is presented below………..


(1980) JELR 67981 (SC)   Supreme Court ·  9 Mar 1980 ·  Ghana



APALOO C.J.: Apaloo C.J. delivered the ruling of the court. The plaintiff alleges that she is the queenmother of Effiduasi, Ashanti. It is in that right that she brought this action. Her present status has been challenged in the pleadings. She accordingly sought and obtained leave to amend her capacity as “a citizen of Ghana hailing from Ashanti Mampong Traditional Area”. In the view that we take of this case, it is not necessary to pronounce on her right to bring this suit.

The first defendant is the paramount chief of Mampong, Ashanti. This is a traditional office of great importance and the holder of such office is held in high esteem by his subjects and strangers alike. But he cannot come by this office unless he has been “nominated, elected and installed in accordance with customary law and usage.” Such pre-eminence does the institution of chieftaincy enjoy in our traditional set-up, that it is expressly guaranteed by the Constitution, 1979, art. 177. It is also copiously regulated by legislation. The current statute on chieftaincy, is the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370).

The first defendant was also a director of the Ghana Cocoa Marketing Board. While holding that office, he allegedly engaged in certain financial transactions which attracted adverse comment from a committee, i.e. the Archer Committee of Inquiry into the affairs of the Ghana Cocoa Marketing Board (the Archer Committee). The first defendant seems to have been aggrieved by the findings of that committee and sought to have them vacated by the special tribunal. Not only was he unsuccessful, but that tribunal proceeded to confirm the adverse findings against him and said “the petitioner (meaning the first defendant) should be disqualified from holding any public office in the country€”

In all probability, it is this holding that provided the motivation for this suit in which the plaintiff seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of this court and invites us to declare that, “the first defendant has disqualified himself from continuing in office as paramount or any other kind of chief.” She also sought other consequential reliefs. It is not necessary to reproduce the consequential reliefs sought by the plaintiff in this ruling but it is sufficient to observe that they can only properly be granted if the first defendant has ceased to be a paramount chief and yet was continuing to hold himself out as such.

It seems plain to us that notwithstanding the way in which the plaint is couched, it is in substance a claim to have it declared that the first defendant has ceased to be a chief by operation of law. A chief becomes one because he is placed on a stool, that is, enstooled. When he is removed from it, he is said to be destooled. These are the expressions which both usage and legislation have hallowed: see section 51 of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370). The fact that both the plaint and the plaintiff’s counsel shrank from using these expressions does not lead us to believe that these proceedings are in substance and truth other than destoolment proceedings.

If that be right, has the original jurisdiction of this court been properly invoked? That we have a final appellate jurisdiction over chieftaincy disputes is expressly spelt out in the Constitution, 1979, art. 179 (1). Our power to enter upon this inquiry as a tribunal of first instance has been disputed, and we were invited to decline to exercise original jurisdiction. In our judgment, this is an invitation that we ought to accept.

The scheme and policy of the Constitution insofar as it affects the institution of chieftaincy, is clear: That document while expressly guaranteeing that institution and leaving its traditional institutions inviolate, at the same time seeks to consign to traditional authorities matters which by reason of their background and expertise, they, more than the ordinary courts, are better fitted to handle. “Causes and matters relating to chieftaincy” is one such matter and article 177 (3) (a) of the Constitution, 1979, validates any law which entrusts them with the task of determining “in accordance with the appropriate customary law and usage” any question relating to “the validity of the nomination, election, installation or deposition of a person as a chief.

The traditional authorities which the article envisages and indeed expressly enumerates are: (1) a traditional council, (2) a regional house of chiefs, or (3) the National House of Chiefs or a chieftaincy tribunal. Broadly speaking, the Constitution, 1969, adopted a similar approach towards chieftaincy. It left the details to be settled by ordinary legislation. The Chieftaincy Act, 1971 (Act 370), settled these details. Its long title makes it clear, namely:

“An Act to amend the statute law on chieftaincy in order to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the Constitution and to make other provisions relating to chieftaincy.”

Its provisions are, in the main, consistent with the present constitutional provisions on chieftaincy. Both article 180 (2) of the constitution, 1979, and section 23 (1) of the Chieftaincy Act, 1971, specifically conferred on a regional house of chiefs, “original jurisdiction in all matters relating to a paramount stool or the occupant of a paramount stool …”

It is common ground that the first defendant is the occupant of a paramount stool. And the present dispute is whether by reason of the adverse findings made against him by the Archer Committee of

Inquiry, he has brought such opprobrium on the stool as to unfit him for continued occupancy of that stool. This is clearly a dispute affecting chieftaincy which ought to be determined according to customary law and usage. The tribunal which the Constitution, 1979, designates to resolve this dispute as of first instance is a regional house of chiefs. As this dispute arose in Ashanti, it is the Ashanti Regional House of Chiefs.

Unless we have concurrent original jurisdiction with that tribunal, our course is clear: We have to deny the plaintiff our aid and decline jurisdiction. It is plain that while the Constitution, 1979, confers appellate jurisdiction on us on disputes such as the present, it grants us no original jurisdiction. It follows that we must accede to the contention of the first defendant and decline jurisdiction.

The plaintiff, however, pleaded her case in such a manner as to make it appear that the interpretation and enforcement jurisdiction of this court is seriously sought. Article 118 (1) (a) of the Constitution, 1979, which confers the jurisdiction apparently invoked provides:

“118. (1) The Supreme Court shall … have original jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other Courts, (a) in all matters relating to the enforcement or interpretation of any provision of this Constitution.”

The plaintiff ex facie, shows herself as invoking that jurisdiction because by paragraph 14 of her amended case she sought:

“(a) An interpretation of section 7 of the transitional provisions and articles 181, 177 and 161 of the Constitution in relation to the first defendant’s pretended right to continue as a chief under the Constitution. (b) The enforcement of the above-named provisions by means of

(i) A declaration that the first defendant disqualified himself from continuing in office as paramount chief or any other chief.”

She sought further consequential reliefs which are immaterial for present purposes.

In a suit where the main and indeed the only issue is whether the first defendant has been guilty of conduct which attracts the customary sanction of deposition, it is difficult to see what object is served in construing any of the articles listed. Speaking broadly, the only object of article 177 is to guarantee, in a national context, the institution of chieftaincy. Article 181 provides a statutory definition of a chief as envisaged by the Constitution. The plaintiff herself concedes that status to the first defendant-at all events at some point of time. If he ceases to hold that office in accordance with customary law, this will not depend on an interpretation of article 181 of the Constitution.

Article 161 and section 7 (1) of the transitional provisions seek to continue in office after the promulgation of the Constitution, 1979, all holders of public and other offices on the eve of the coming into force of the Constitution. It is not suggested that either provision is ambiguous or give rise to any problem of interpretation. It is difficult to see how either of these provisions shed any light on the question in controversy in this case, namely, whether or not the first defendant is still in lawful occupation of the paramount stool of Mampong, Ashanti.

If the plaintiff’s case for interpretation is tenuous, her plea for enforcement is even more so. To enforce a provision of the Constitution, is to compel its observance. The plaintiff was not able to point to any provision of the Constitution which the first defendant has breached, or threatens to breach. What she apparently conceives as enforcement of the Constitution is the seeking of a declaratory relief which is permissible under section 1 of the Elections and Public Offices Disqualification Decree, 1978 (S.M.C.D. 206). It is that law which imposes the disqualification on which the plaintiff’s case for interpretation and enforcement is grounded.

The plain truth of the matter is that the original jurisdiction of this court has been wrongly invoked. We will accordingly accede to the challenge to our jurisdiction. Perhaps we should point out at least for the benefit of the profession, that where the issue sought to be decided is clear and is not resolvable by interpretation, we will firmly resist any invitation to pronounce on the meaning of constitutional provisions. It would, we think, be a waste of mental effort and a thoroughly pointless exercise.

As we have already publicly acknowledged, this matter was extremely well argued by counsel on both sides, and we are greatly indebted to them. But in view of what we have said in the foregoing paragraphs of this ruling, this action ought to be and is hereby struck out. The plaintiff will pay the costs of the first defendant only fixed at ¢1,000.

Source: SCGLR 3

Continue Reading


Flashback: If A Sheep Contested Mahama, I Would Have Voted For That Sheep – Manasseh



Award winning investigative journalist, Manasseh Azure Awuni prior to the 2016 polls had on several occasions expressed his discontentment with the John Dramani Mahama led NDC administration.

He severally in written articles expressed his desire to see the ‘corrupt ridden’ Mahama administration out of office and even in 2019 expressed no regrets over voting against him in 2016.

Manasseh, after an aide to the former president, Joyce Bawa Mogtari said Ghanaians have regretted voting out Mahama in the 2016 elections, quickly noted that he hadn’t regretted in anyway, albeit, not pleased with the President Akufo-Addo government.

Manasseh further noted that had John Mahama contested with a sheep as the only alternative during the 2016 polls, he would have voted for that sheep.

“If the only alternative to John Mahama in the 2016 election was a sheep, I would have voted for that sheep,” he wrote.


Continue Reading


Flashback: I Won’t Honor CID Invitation, I’m Not A Thief – Kennedy Agyapong



In September 2017, Member of Parliament for Assin Central, Kennedy Ohene Agyapong, denied allegations that he had been invited by the police CID to substantiate allegations against some unnamed presidential staffers.

This came after Mr. Agyapong accused an unnamed staffer at the Jubilee House which is the seat of government of demanding Twenty Thousand Dollars from an unnamed investor before allowing the person to see President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.

According to him, even if the CID had invited him as some reports suggested he would not have honored the invitation because he was not a thief.

“Nobody has called me to come to the police station; I am not a thief or have lodged a complaint with the police?…even if they call me I won’t go. I will even go and take my evidence from the police”, he revealed on Oman FM’s Boiling Point on Thursday.

Without offering any evidence to support his claim, Mr. Agyapong said those who have consistently berated him for speaking the truth should be reminded he is not ready to stop talking because the truth is what will set him free.

“Those people who say I talk too much cannot stop me because they don’t provide me with oxygen to breathe,” he said. “I will speak until I die.”

Director of Communications at the Presidency, Eugene Arhin said the allegations of the lawmaker has been referred to the CID for investigations but he explicitly indicated that he was never going to honour any invite.

Source: GhanaFeed.Com

Continue Reading


Election 202060 mins ago

Chief Justice Warns NDC’s Dominic Ayine Over His Behavior In Open Court

The Chief Justice, Justice Anin Yeboah, has cautioned former Deputy Minister for Justice and Attorney General, Dominic Ayine over his...

Election 20202 hours ago

You Can’t Sacrifice Justice For Expedition – Tsatsu Tsikata Tells Supreme Court

Counsel for the petitioner in the ongoing 2020 Presidential Election Petition, Tsatsu Tsikata, has told the Supreme Court that much...

Election 20203 hours ago

Just In: Tsatsu Tsikata Files For A Review Of Supreme Court’s Dismissal Of Interrogatories

Counsel for the Petitioner in the 2020 election Petition, Tsatsu Tsikata has filed a review at the registry of the...

Election 20204 hours ago

Election Petition: Mahama Chases EC With Six Fresh Demands At The Supreme Court

Former President John Mahama has filed a motion at the Supreme Court making fresh demands from the Electoral Commission (EC)...

Election 202016 hours ago

Relentless Tsatsu Tsikata Files Another Motion At The Supreme Court Asking EC To Provide Originals Of All Results Declaration Forms

Lead Counsel for the Petitioner in the ongoing Election Petition, Tsatsu Tsikata has filed another motion at the Supreme Court...

Election 202021 hours ago

“Am I Not Allowed To Mention Jean Mensa’s Name?” – The Dramatic Moment, Tsatsu Tsikata Clashed With A Supreme Court Judge

The 2020 election petition is living up to its dramatic expectations as the counsel for the flagbearer of NDC, John...

Election 20201 day ago

Supreme Court Dismisses Tsikata’s Application To Get EC Chair To Answer Some Questions

The Supreme Court has dismissed an application by counsel for the Petitioner in the 2020 Election Petition, Tsatsu Tsikata, who...

Politics1 day ago

How Did You Get That 138 Number? – Kyei-Mensah Asks Bagbin; Insists He Was Elected By Consensus

Leader of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) caucus in Parliament, Osei Kyei-Mensah-Bonsu has refuted claims that Speaker of Parliament, Alban...

Politics1 day ago

Pray For Akufo-Addo And Shun The Debate On Who Becomes Flagbearer In 2024 – NPP Advised

The New Patriotic Party (NPP) has been advised to refrain from the early debate over who becomes the party’s next...

Election 20201 day ago

Mahama Arrives At The Supreme Court As Pre-Trial Hearing Begins Today

The Supreme Court will today Tuesday, January 19, 2021, sit on a pre-trial conference for parties in the 2020 election...


Business1 month ago

Sujimoto’s Banana Island Project To Be The Next Downtown, Dubai

“You buy ‘a property’ when you want to be somebody, but you buy a LeonardoBySujimoto when you are already someone”...

Business3 months ago

SIJIBOMI OGUNDELE: How I Run Sujimoto Construction; My Story: From Agege to Ikoyi, How to Make Nigeria and Its Youths Great

Avant-garde, debonair, futuristic, and innovative is among the traits that describe the Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director of Sujimoto...

Business3 months ago

Police Withdraw Criminal Case Against Alhaji Sinare

The Ghana Police have withdrawn a criminal case against the National Vice Chairman of the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC),...

Business4 months ago

Sub-Saharan Africa Has No Choice Than To Stick To Fossil Fuel-Dr Babajide Agunbiade.

As the world is drifting towards the use of renewable energy to power their economies, sub-Saharan Africa has no choice...

Business4 months ago

African Construction Giant, Sujimoto Clinches Time Tech Award

Sijumoto, Nigeria’s leading luxury Real Estate brand has won the just concluded Time Tech Award, a prestigious continental award organised...

Business4 months ago

4% Reduction In ‘Talk Tax’ Takes Effect Today

Mobile subscribers and data users will from Tuesday, September 15, 2020, enjoy longer durations of voice and data bundles but...

Business4 months ago

African Construction Giant, Sujimoto Explains 400% ROI In Two Years Offer

Sujimoto Construction CEO, Sijibomi Ogundele, has said that 400% return in 2 years for investing in LeonardoBySujimoto is real, describing...

Business4 months ago

We Have Not Sent Out Any Text Messages On Behalf Of Political Parties – Telecoms Chamber

The Ghana Chamber of Telecommunications has disassociated itself from unsolicited political short messages (SMS) which are being sent mobile phone...

Business5 months ago

Sujimoto, Africa’s Top Real Estate Brand, Offers Massive 400% ROI On Flagship LeonardoBySujimoto

A GIFT OF 400% ROI ON THE LEONARDOBYSUJIMOTO IN 2 YEARS! The Leonardo is offering you a whopping 400% in...

Business5 months ago

All Customers Of Collapsed Banks Have Been Paid – BoG

Governor of the Bank of Ghana, Dr. Ernest Addison has stated that all customers of the nine collapsed banks have...