This article offers a partial response to the article ‘Otumfuo Osei Tutu II is not a King’, published on GhanaWeb on 12th November 2023.

The article in question is a transcription of remarks made by Mr. Anokye Frimpong (a Historian) in an interview with GhanaWeb. This brief rejoinder focuses on the following aspects of Mr. Frimpong’s remarks that Otumfuo is
not a king but a ‘super paramount chief’ and that there cannot be a king or monarch within a republic.

I agree that the Otumfuo is, to some extent, a paramount chief in that he is the traditional head of one of the major states that came together to form the Asante Kingdom which has today metamorphosed into Asanteman.

I also agree with the view that the Otumfuo, by virtue of his position as the authentic custodian of the Golden Stool, the undisputed political and spiritual head of Asanteman, and a unifier, among others, is primus inter pares (what Mr. Frimpong calls ‘super paramount chief’) as far as the paramount chiefs in Asante/Asanteman are concerned.

However, I diametrically oppose the view that the Otumfuo is not a king.

Evidently, Mr. Frimpong premised his argument (that the Otumfuo is not a king) on several incorrect assumptions. Thus, his assertion is drawn largely from the following false premises:

To qualify as a king, one should necessarily:

Have supreme authority in a sovereign state or country

Enjoy sovereign immunity and not be subject or accountable to any state
institution (i.e., parliament, the executive body, the judiciary, the police, etc) and

Has his own government (legislature and executive body), judiciary, etc in a country.

He concludes, based on the aforementioned assumptions, that there cannot be a monarchy or kingdom (a society headed by a king/monarch) within a republic (a state ruled by representatives of the citizenry or in which political power rests with the public and their representatives).

In this brief rejoinder, I argue and demonstrate that Mr Frimpong’s perspective and description of a king/monarch in contemporary society is significantly misleading and, perhaps, flawed. He seems to quite erroneously suggest that the monarchy of the United Kingdom is the epitome of an ideal monarchical system.

Hence, any supposed monarch whose powers are not as supreme as those of the UK monarch cannot legitimately be classified as a king/queen.

The term ‘monarchy’ largely denotes a political system based upon the complete sovereignty or rule of a single person. Thus, it generally applies to a society in which supreme or considerable authority is vested in a monarch/king. A king or monarch is commonly viewed as an individual ruler who, in most cases, functions as the head of state and whose position is achieved through heredity.

However, there are two main categories of monarchy/kingdom: sovereign monarchy and sub-national monarchy.

Two main forms of sovereign monarchy exist, namely: absolute monarchy in which the sovereign exercises supreme authority and rules without bounds, and constitutional monarchy, in which the sovereign is bound by laws and customs in the exercise of his or her powers.

Sub-national monarchies, on the other hand, are not sovereign and exist within larger political systems or associations.

In contemporary Africa, there are only three sovereign monarchies: Eswatini (formerly known as Swaziland), Lesotho, and Morocco. However, only Eswatini is an absolute monarchy. Lesotho and Morocco are constitutional monarchies.

Several African societies fall within the category of sub-national monarchies. Among them are: the Zulu and Xhosa of South Africa, the Asante of Ghana, the Bini/Benin of Nigeria, and several others. Leaders of these societies are legitimately referred to as ‘kings’ or their equivalent in the relevant local languages.

Indeed, it would be unreasonable for any individual to argue that the leader of, for instance, the Zulu people is not a king just because KwaZulu-Natal (Zululand) is located within a republic (the Republic of South Africa) and that the leader is subject to national institutions.

In Ghana, the Chieftaincy Act 2008 refers to the leader/head of the Asante or Asanteman as ‘Asantehene’. The truth is that the titles/phrases ‘Asantehene’ and ‘King of the Asante’ mean the same thing—they express the same idea (i.e., the supreme ruler of the Asante) in two different languages. This is a clear indication that the laws of Ghana recognise Asante as a sub-national monarchy and its leader as a sub-national monarch/king.

The question as to what criteria are used (or should be used) for categorising a society as a sub-national monarchy, is beyond the scope of this article. However, I believe that the history, hierarchical structure, influence, size, and political system of a society/group may be key to its categorisation as a sub-national monarchy.

It must be stressed that this brief article does not by any means suggest that there is only one sub-national monarch or king in Ghana or that Asante is the only sub-national monarchy in the country. Instead, it seeks to correct the misconception that there cannot be a king/monarch within a republic.

Thus, the thrust of my argument is that a king does not necessarily have to wield supreme authority in a country, enjoy sovereign immunity, or have his government. A king can legitimately exist within a republic.