A House Divided: Legal Questions Deepen Crisis at Volta Regional House of Chiefs

The Volta Regional House of Chiefs (VRHC) is entangled in a high-stakes leadership and legal crisis over the disputed elevation of Torgbui Samlafo IV of Atseame to paramountcy, raising sharp questions about statutory mandates, procedural integrity, and the balance of power between regional and national chieftaincy bodies.

At the heart of the dispute are allegations of jurisdictional overreach, contested documentation, and a controversial reliance on procedural technicalities in court, all of which have exposed fissures in Ghana’s traditional governance framework.

A Petition and a Procedural Defeat

The legal battle traces back to 2019, when Togbe Dorglo Anumah VI, Paramount Chief of Avenor, petitioned the VRHC, accusing Torgbi Sri II, Paramount Chief of Anlo, of unlawfully elevating his sub-chief, Torgbui Samlafo IV, to paramount status.

For years, the case stalled amid delays. In 2024, VRHC’s new legal counsel, Cephas Mortey Esq., discovered that the respondents had not been properly served. The court ordered substituted service, but the respondents countered at the Ho High Court that the original writ had expired. On July 8, 2025, the High Court struck out the case on that procedural basis, without ruling on the substantive question of whether the elevation was lawful.

Legal experts say this outcome underscores how procedural lapses, rather than merits, can determine the fate of chieftaincy disputes.

A Contested Letter Surfaces

While litigation was still active, a letter dated January 28, 2022, emerged as the focal point of controversy. Allegedly signed by then-VRHC Registrar Harry Attipoe and issued under the instructions of VRHC President Togbe Tepre Hodo IV, the letter recommended Samlafo’s elevation to the National House of Chiefs (NHoC).

Critics argue the move was ultra vires, as the full VRHC had neither debated nor approved such a recommendation. Despite this, on August 1, 2025, a sub-committee of the NHoC approved Samlafo’s elevation, citing the contested letter as authority.

September 4 Revolt Inside VRHC

The matter escalated on September 4, 2025, when the VRHC convened to consider Samlafo’s Chieftaincy Declaration form, typically a routine step for formal registration after elevation.

In an unprecedented show of dissent, members voted overwhelmingly—33 in favour, 2 opposed, and 15 abstaining—to halt the registration. The vote was presided over by VRHC President Togbe Tepre Hodo IV, underscoring internal contradictions within the leadership.

The rejection was interpreted by insiders as a clear signal: the majority of members did not accept the elevation or the manner in which it was executed.

Abdication or Deflection?

Despite the decisive vote, the VRHC leadership issued a letter, signed by Acting Registrar Mohammed Ikililu, deferring the matter to the NHoC. The letter cited the NHoC’s earlier approval but acknowledged the VRHC’s rejection, concluding that jurisdiction now lay with the national body.

Legal observers disagree. Under Ghana’s Chieftaincy Act, regional houses are vested with the statutory responsibility to vet, recommend, and register chiefs. By deflecting responsibility, critics argue, the VRHC risks undermining its own mandate and creating a dangerous precedent of institutional abdication.

One source within the VRHC told this reporter on condition of anonymity:

“The House voted and took a decision. Our responsibility is to notify the National House—not surrender our powers. This letter makes it appear Accra decides for us, which is not what the law says.”

Legal and Governance Implications

The dispute highlights contrasting leadership styles within the VRHC. In previous cases—such as the Liati-Gbledi ethnic boundary dispute—the House asserted its authority by mandating a Research Committee and issuing a binding ruling that reduced tensions. The current crisis, however, reveals hesitation and divided loyalties at the leadership level.

The National House of Chiefs now faces a legal and political dilemma. Upholding its sub-committee’s approval could validate what some consider a procedurally tainted process. Conversely, respecting the VRHC’s rejection would reinforce the principle of statutory autonomy for regional houses.

Whichever path is chosen, legal analysts warn that the decision will reverberate far beyond Atseame and Avenor, potentially reshaping the contours of traditional governance in Ghana.