All Kumawuman citizens the worldwide are to read the full text of Kumawuhemaa's defence submission of no case to answer. She feels the petitioners herein mentioned are unqualified to initiate any such motion against her. To her, the stool is the bona fide property of her Ankaase royal family. I have written extensively on her deplorable attitude in relation to the ongoing Kumawu chieftaincy wrangling. I will be commenting once more in detail about the points she has raised in defence of her refusal to cede the Kumawu paramount throne to the Ananangyas/Odumases. Before then, I give you the opportunity to make your own individual judgments, considering what she is saying, what you know, what you have heard and or been told, and what John Fosu, the self-made historian has been saying all along.

In order not to bore you with any lengthy story, I will end here today with the promise to expatiate upon why the throne should go to the Ananangyas, contrary to the wish of Kumawuhemaa and the Krontihene.

IN THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE ASHANTI REGION HOUSE OF CHIEFS

1. NANA SARFO AGYEKUM II ]

ADUANAHENE AND ABUSUAPANIN OF ] KUMAWU PARAMOUNT ADUANA ROYAL FAMILY ] ] 2. NANA KWAKU DAMTE ] ANANANGYAHENE-KUMAWU ] ]

3. OPANIN NTI KWAKYE ] PETITIONERS ABUSUAPANIN OF ANANANGYA ] ADUANA ROYAL FAMILY OF KUMAWU ] ] 4. OPANIN KWAME TAWIAH ] ABUSUAPANIN OF ODUMASE ] ADUANA ROYAL FAMILY - KUMAWU ]

VERSUS

1. NANA SERWAAH AMPONSAH } QUEENMOTHER OF KUMAWU TRADITIONAL } AREA, KUMAWU } }

DEFENDANTS 2. NANA PEPRAH KODUAH IV } KRONTIHENE } KUMAWU TRADITIONAL AREA, KUMAWU }

STATEMENT OF CASE OF DEFENDANTS

1. The Defendants deny that the 1st Petitioner is Aduanahene and Abusuapanin of Kumawu Paramount Aduana Royal Family.

2. The Defendants say that there are many Aduana clan groups at Kumawu. The 1st Petitioner belongs to the Odumase Aduana Clan. The several clans do not have a common Aduanahene nor an overall Abusuapanin. The 1st Petitioner is not eligible for the Kumawu Paramount Stool.

3. The Defendants say that the 2nd Petitioner is the Odikro of Aninangya. But 2nd Petitioner is not a blood descendant of Seni Fontom who was the originator of the Kumawu Royal Paramount Stool.

4. The Defendants say that the 3rd Petitioner is a member of the Ananangya Aduana family; he, 3rd Petitioner, like the 2nd Petitioner, is not a descendant of Seni Fontom and is consequently not eligible for the Kumawu Paramount Stool.

5. The Defendants say that 4th Petitioner is Abusuapanin of the Odumase Aduana Clan, but he is not eligible for the Kumawu Paramount Stool.

6. The Defendants say that Akosua Hema, a descendant of the said Seni Fontom, settled at Ananangya where there were other members of the Aduana Clan, such as the ancestors of the 2nd and 3rd Petitioners. The descendants of Akosua Hema came to be known as the Ananangya branch of the Kumawu royal Paramount Stool family and they alone are the members of the Ananangya Aduana family who are eligible for the Kumawu Paramount Stool.

7. The Defendants contend that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Petitioners are not members of the Kumawu Stool family and lineage and have no capacity to institute this Petition.

8. The Defendants make no admissions in respect of paragraph 3 of the Petition

9. THE NAME AND ADDRESS FOR SERVICE OF DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL (Address intentionally withheld by me)

10. NAMES AND PARTICULARS OF WITNESSES OF THE DEFENDANTS

1. The 1st and 2nd Defendants

2. Nana Osei Adomako, Nkondwasoafohene of Kumawu

3. The Registrar, Circuit Court, Kumawu

4. Madam Abena Amansowa, caretaker of female stools

5. Nana Kwame Acheampong, Abusuapanin of Ankaase royal stool family of Kumawu

6. Particulars of other witnesses will be notified.

11. The Defendants deny paragraph 1 of the Petitioners' alleged facts and particulars.

12. In further answer to the said paragraph, the Defendants say that

a) "Taa Akyampong Abamoo" was captured by Kumawu during the Atala Finam war

b). Before its capture there had been some 5 ahemaa (queenmothers) of Kumawu. The "abamoo" was not the customary insignia of office of the queenmother though it was the ohemaa who kept it.

c) The "abamoo" was given to Ohemaa Taa Akyampong to keep but it was never intended to be the insignia of office of the queenmother. It was looked upon as a "fertility doll" which would make women fertile.

d) During the reign of Barima Asumadu Sakyi II and whilst Nana Ama Akyaama, was ohemaa of Kumawu, the "abamoo" got missing. When it was later found, Barima Asumadu Sakyi II for security reasons caused the "Abamoo" and, later, the female stools to be kept in the male stool room at his palace under the care of the Nkondwasoafohene.

e) The 1st Defendant says that she became queenmother of Kumawu on 2nd May, 1990 in succession to Ohemaa Ama Akyaama; and the "Abamoo" has at all times been kept in the male stool room at the Omanhene's Palace from where it got missing again in about July, 2003.

13. The Defendants deny paragraph 2 of the "facts and particulars" alleged by the Petitioners and say that there is no such customary rule at Kumawu as stated by the Petitioners; Ohemaa Ama Akyaama continued to perform all the traditional functions and died on the stool and did not suffer any incapacity to perform her traditional functions as Ohemaa of Kumawu Traditional area. The Ist Defendant has been performing and is in no way disqualified from performing her traditional functions as Ohemaa.

14. The Defendants deny paragraph 3 of the facts and particulars alleged by the Petitioners and repeat that:

i) There is no such office as the "overall abusuapanin" of Kumawu Aduana royal family.

ii) The custom pertaining at Kumawu with regard to the Paramount Stool is that where there is no Ohemaa, the Kingmakers would consult the Obaapanin of each of the two royal houses who would nominate a candidate or candidates for the consideration of the Kingmakers.

15. In answer to paragraph 4 of the "facts and particulars" alleged by the Petitioners, the the Defendants repeat that there is no office known to Kumawu custom as the "overall abusuapanin" of the Kumawu Paramount Aduana royal family. The Defendants say the Ohemaa consults all the heads of the eligible families.

16. The Defendants repeat paragraph 12 (d) and (e) and say that 2 persons were on 9th December, 2004 convicted at the Circuit Court of Kumawu, for the theft of the "Abamoo" and other stool properties of the Kumawu Stool.

17. The Defendants contend that if, which is denied, there were any such customary rule as contended for by the petitioners in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the petition, it cannot apply to the 1st Defendant in the circumstances of this case.

18. In denial of paragraph 5 of the "facts and particulars" alleged by the petitioners the Defendants say that:

(i) there are only two royal houses that are eligible for the Kumawu paramount stool: the Ankaase and Ananangya royal houses.

(ii) In about 1941 Barima Kwabena Kodua of Ananangya royal house was enstooled Kumawuhene.

(iii) Upon his destoolment, Ohemaa Adwoa Serwaa, of Ananangya royal house, nominated Barima Otuo Acheampong, of Ankaase royal house; he was installed Kumawuhene.

19. The Defendants contend that the Ohemaa exercises her discretion to nominate a

candidate for the Stool on proper grounds. This is not unreasonable and not contrary to the custom and practice of Kumawu

20. Save in so far as herein before expressly or by necessary implication admitted, the Defendants deny such and every allegation of fact in the petitioners Statement of Claim as if the same had been set out herein in extenso and traversed seriatim.

DATED AT KUMASI THIS 12th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2007.

.............................................. 1st DEFENDANT NANA SERWAA AMPONSAH OHEMAA OF KUMAWU

............................................. 2nd DEFENDANT NANA PEPRA KODUA IV KRONTIHENE OF KUMAWU

THE REGISTRAR ASHANTI REGION HOUSE OF CHIEFS KUMASI

AND TO THE PETITIONERS HEREIN OF THEIR SOLICITOR: (Name and address withheld)

John Fosu