My attention has been drawn to an article by one Seidu Gbankuliso Akpampo with the title "Gonja Traditional Council vs Jinapor, A challenging precedent to National House of Chiefs". In the said article the writer makes scathing attacks on the National House of Chiefs to the extent of comparing the ruling of the National house of Chiefs in the Buipe Chieftaincy matter to the jokes the ace Ghanaian comedian "Waterproof" (may his soul rest in peace). Under normal circumstances one would have allowed such an article to pass without comment bearing in mind that discerning Ghanaians would ignore this article since it lacks research and an in-depth analysis of the issues, however as an educated chief who resides in Buipe and for that matter a Gonja by tribe, I am compelled to issue this rejoinder to correct the distortions and ignorance exhibited and imbedded in the article. Firstly it is completely false and erroneous to state that the National House of Chiefs upheld the ruling of the High Court, the National House of Chiefs is not higher than the High Court, indeed the High court has supervisory authority over the National House of Chiefs and therefore it cannot be the case the case that an inferior court can uphold the decision of a superior court, this is simply legally impossible, Indeed Article 126 (1) states that "The Judiciary shall consist of - (a) the Superior Courts of Judicature comprising - (i) the Supreme Court; (ii) the Court of Appeal; and (iii) the High Court and Regional Tribunals. (b) Such lower courts or tribunals as Parliament may by law establish", a simple research by the author would have avoided this embarrassment spectacle and clearly shows that the writer is ignorant of basic constitutional provisions. The fact of the matter is that the National House of Chiefs only upheld an earlier ruling of the Northern Regional House of Chiefs which ruled in favour of Buipe wura Jinapor. Secondly, the writer in his haste and without recourse to the basic facts tried to compare the case of Buipe wura to that of Juasohene. Sadly however this exposes him once again, unlike the matter with Jinapor, the case involving the Juasohene was given a fair hearing by the respected Asantehene, interestingly and mischievously the writer fails or refuses to underscore the fact that the Juasohene matter travelled the full haul and in this case both the accused and accusers where given equal opportunity to present their sides of the story, pathetic to say however that in the case of Jinapor, simple basic tenets of natural justice was not even followed; it is absurd to note that not only were the charges fabricated (as was proven in court) they were laid against him in absentia, he was not even given the opportunity to answer to the charges let alone defend himself, even in Afghanistan where Sharia law was practiced, accused persons were given the opportunity to defend themselves before judgment was passed, to prefer charges against the Buipe wura and pass judgment within ten minutes in absentia smacks of hypocrisy and a well calculated clandestine attempt to unfairly punish him. The Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759), passed by Parliament has outlined procedures and guidelines for kingmakers on the installation, enskinment, destoolment and de-skinment of chiefs. If we want to be in a haste to compare our chiefs to distinguished personalities like the Asantehene, then we should encourage them to act and follow the deeds of the Asantehene and not defend them to the hilt even when it is glaring that our chiefs are wrong. Much as I agree that the Yagbon wura is the overlord of Gonja land it would be most unfortunate to use that power in a capricious and whimsical manner, may I once again remind the writer and readers to avert their minds to the Chieftaincy Act which was crafted by the chiefs themselves including the overlord of Gonja land and promulgated by parliament. The act spells out clearly how a chief should be disskinned, we are not an island and cannot behave in a manner contrary to the constitution. The more we contradict acts and laws of which we are part of constitution, the more we ridicule ourselves before the public. The writer in a manner characteristic of politicians has as usual turned his guns on the spokesperson to the Vice president Mr. John Jinapor and concludes that just because he is coincidentally related to the Buipe wura he must be blamed, well this is a matter for politicians and as usual the blame game never ceases, however for such a conclusion to come from an educated person who should know the principle underpinning the separation of powers in the constitution leaves much to be desired. The fact is that Jinapor won his first case in court in May 2008 when the NDC was then in opposition. There is a popular Nigerian proverb that "If one were to remove every smoking wood from a fire and condemn it as bad, one would be killing the fire itself" so what is the analogy? that every politician related to one faction in a Chieftaincy dispute must be axed, very soon everybody would be axed because like it or leave it, we are all in one way related to each other. Is it not interesting to note that whilst saboteurs are working tremendously to poison the relationship between the Vice President and Yagbon wura, the eldest son of the Yagbon wura continue to work in the office of the Vice President's brother, should he also be sacked, politicians must learn to know that what goes around comes around. On the issue of the alleged kidnapping, the least I comment on it the better, these frivolous, concocted and fabricated statements would not wash, the matter is in court hence I would exercise a high sense of responsibility and not conclude. Sooner than later the facts would be laid bare as it is in a competent court and all who follow the case would have the opportunity to judge for themselves whether the allegations are true or not. Permit me to say unequivocally that the traditional council erred because they refused to follow simple traditional and constitutional provisions. Nobody I dare say can influence the Regional and National house of chiefs. There is popular Zulu saying that "It is a lazy man who says it is only because I have no time that my farm is overgrown with weeds” rather than blaming innocent people for the losses in court we should begin to ask ourselves what we did not do right, we must ask ourselves "what led to our fall and not where we fell" Chiefs like us have sworn to defend the rights of people no matter the circumstances we would certainly not sit aloof for innocent people like Jinapor to be unduly penalised. Long live Ghana. Gungunso-wura Konkonte A Sub Chief from Buipe