Ghana Has No Kings: Let’s Respect Our Constitution and Traditions

In recent times, it has become fashionable to hear people refer to their traditional leaders as “kings.” From social media posts to public events, the title king is being loosely and widely used for chiefs across the country. While many may consider it harmless or a mark of respect, this growing practice is legally incorrect and potentially misleading in a democratic Ghana.

Ghana is a constitutional democracy, not a monarchy. The 1992 Constitution is explicit on the structure of governance — sovereignty resides in the people of Ghana, and power is exercised through elected representatives: the President, Parliament, and the Judiciary. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any recognition of a king or monarch as a sovereign authority.

What the Constitution does recognise, however, is chieftaincy. Under Article 270, the institution of chieftaincy, together with its traditional councils and houses, is protected and respected. Chiefs serve as custodians of tradition, culture, and communal lands; they are symbols of unity and identity in their traditional areas. Yet, their authority is customary, not political. They do not wield state power and are constitutionally barred from engaging in partisan politics.

For this reason, no individual in Ghana can legally assume the title of “king.” The title carries monarchical implications, sovereignty, absolute rule, and political authority which do not exist in Ghana’s democratic framework. To call someone a king, therefore, is to contradict the very principles of the Constitution that bind the nation together.

Before independence, Ghana (then the Gold Coast) was indeed made up of various kingdoms. Powerful precolonial states like Asante, Dagbon, Mamprugu, and Gonja. Their rulers were genuinely kings, exercising political, spiritual, and military authority over their people. However, upon gaining independence in 1957 and later adopting the 1992 Constitution, Ghana became a unitary democratic republic. Political power was centralised under a constitutional framework, and traditional authority was confined to cultural and customary domains. Hence, while the term king may have been appropriate in the precolonial or early colonial period, it has no constitutional basis today.

To continue to refer to chiefs as “kings” may seem like a gesture of respect, but it could gradually blur the lines between customary authority and constitutional governance. It risks creating confusion about the limits of traditional power and could even lead to unnecessary tension or misinterpretation of the chiefs’ roles in the democratic space.

Besides, what sense does it make to call someone a king when that same person, together with his subjects, is subject to the laws of the Republic of Ghana? If a so-called king can be summoned before a court, arrested, or bound by national legislation, can he truly be a king? Chiefs may exercise traditional authority within their areas, but they ultimately remain citizens who are governed by the same laws as everyone else. This alone proves that the notion of “kingship” in a democratic Ghana is inconsistent with both our Constitution and our system of governance.

Moreover, there is an increasing concern about the growing political involvement of chiefs, even though the Constitution clearly restrains them from engaging in partisan politics. Some traditional leaders have become overtly political, taking sides in elections or making public statements that undermine their neutrality. By doing so, they are not only losing their moral authority and traditional respect, but also eroding the customary values that make the chieftaincy institution sacred and unique. Chiefs are expected to unite their people, not divide them along political lines.

We must, therefore, be guided by the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Our chiefs deserve every form of respect and reverence for their invaluable role in preserving our identity and heritage. But let us honour them within the legal and cultural framework that defines Ghana’s modern statehood.

Ghana has no kings, and there should be no kings in a democracy. Let us respect the Constitution, uphold our traditions, and protect the integrity of both, for in doing so, we safeguard not only our democracy but also the true dignity of our traditional institutions.

Ghanaians are watching!
FAB's Gist.