There is a need to educate ourselves from time to time to get our facts right. Many a time have we held on to some false notions, believing same to be true. However, through education, sharing, and exchanging of views, we may learn to get certain things right.

In Ghana, as I speak, many of us strongly believe that there is a powerful King in the country in the person of Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, the Asantehene, and the occupant of the Golden Stool. This belief and acceptance are as erroneous as we are naïve or fail to be abreast with historical narratives.

There are absolutely no kings in Ghana today but chiefs, the traditional heads of the paramountcies.

Again, there is not any monarchical Kingdom in Ghana today but chiefdoms. “A chiefdom is a form of hierarchical political organization in non-industrial societies usually based on kinship, and in which formal leadership is monopolized by the legitimate senior members of select families or 'houses'”.

Even the most popular Kingdom in pre- and during the colonisation of Gold Coast, the Asante Kingdom, or the Asante Empire, was dissolved by the British colonialists upon the deposition, capture, and deportation of Asantehene Nana Agyemang Prempeh I to Seychelles in 1896.

When he finally returned to the Gold Coast in 1924, he was made Kumasihene and later the Ceremonial Head of Ashanti with comparatively limited powers over the other principal divisions within the former Asante Kingdom.

The British conquerors made cadastral demarcations of the Ashanti land among the created paramountcies. Each of the paramountcy was headed by a local royal member, elected by the queen, the royal family head, and the kingmakers.

The British having dissolved the Kingdom, abolished the powers, removed the throne(s), then created a less respected name for what were the thrones, for the leaders of the paramountcies. They called them STOOLS.

Any chief in Ghana today occupies a stool but not a throne. The people of Ghana themselves call their chief’s seats stools. Why did the British colonialists do that? We shall find out shortly.

Kingdoms exist in some parts of the world, e.g., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or say, the entire Gulf States. Their leaders are proper Kings because their countries are total monarchies.

“All current member states are monarchies, including three constitutional monarchies (Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain), two absolute monarchies (Saudi Arabia and Oman), and one federal monarchy (the United Arab Emirates, which is composed of seven member states, each of which is an absolute monarchy with its own emir)”.

What is a stool by every definition of the word? A stool is defined as “a seat without any support for the back or arms” or “a piece of solid waste from the body”.

Why would the British rename our thrones stools? Is it not for the total disregard they had for us as a people, if not subhuman?

What is a throne then? It is “the special decorative chair used by a ruler, especially a king or queen”.

Why did the British rename the chairs used by our chiefs as stools? The answer can be found in the quoted reference below.

“During the Victoria era, the paramount chief was a formal title created by British colonial administrators in the British Empire and applied in Britain's colonies in Asia and Africa. They used it as a substitute for the word "king" to ensure that only the British monarch held that title.[1] Since the title "chief" was already used in terms of district and town administrators, the addition of "paramount" was made to distinguish between the ruling monarch and the local aristocracy.[1]” – Wikipedia.

Whether they are kings or chiefs, our traditional setup makes it mandatory for the subjects to pay homage to their chiefs; that we do.

Are the chiefs or kings conducting themselves responsibly in today’s modern Ghana to be worthy of their titles and the reverence shown to them by their subjects?

It is up to Ghanaians to judge, according to their individual understandings and cultural obligations. Nevertheless, we should learn to uphold the truth, be honest, and tell things as they are but not hypocritically or subserviently.

We stand to be equally guilty as our kings or chiefs if we failed to find a way to tell them the truth or correct them when they are found to be diverting from the truth or straying away from the correct path.

I am here to not denigrate any person, be they king, chief, or subject, but to tell the truth as I see it.

I welcome other views, criticisms, and bashings as one may choose. Nonetheless, I aspire to see the truth prevail or stand.

Why should we be afraid, to tell the truth failing to do so gives rise to the perpetuation of evil, abuse of power, and undeserved arrogation of power to certain people by themselves.

As then President Barack Obama of the USA advised Ghanaians, “You need to create strong institutions but not stronger persons”.

By our over-subservience and reverence for our chiefs, we have become victims of our own creation under the hands of the chiefs.

You are as much aware of the wrongs most of them do to their subjects or Ghanaians, contrary to conventions.

Please, don’t be my unfortunate enemy for the fact of candidly expressing my views. You can believe what you want to believe in, and kowtow to whom you like, but let us simply agree to disagree without any menace.