A public arbitration held at Xavi in the Akatsi South Municipality of the Volta Region has sparked debate over the application of customary law following a dispute between Mr. Fauster Ahiagba and his nephew, Mr. Robert Dotsey, over a vehicle purchased under a work-and-pay arrangement.
The dispute, which began as a disagreement over payment and the condition of the vehicle, later escalated into allegations of spiritual attacks, prompting Mr. Dotsey to petition the Duamenefa Foundation for intervention.
According to a petition submitted by Mr. Robert Dotsey to the Duamenefa Foundation, Mr. Fauster Ahiagba purchased a car for him under a four-year work-and-pay agreement which began in 2023. Mr. Dotsey stated that after using the vehicle for about two years and two months, he had paid Ghc157,000 out of the agreed amount of Ghc300,000.
He explained that the vehicle subsequently developed frequent mechanical faults, making it difficult for him to continue making the agreed weekly payments. According to him, the disagreement over the vehicle and the payments eventually escalated into other issues, prompting him to seek the intervention of the Duamenefa Foundation.
During its investigation, the Foundation documented several allegations made by Mr. Dotsey. He maintained that the vehicle was given to him for Ghc300,000 under the four-year arrangement and that he had paid Ghc157,000.
Mr. Dotsey further alleged that Mr. Ahiagba invoked the wrath of traditional deities, which he identified as Voodoo Afetorku and Voodoo Kpegidi, against him. He claimed that the alleged spiritual attacks were affecting his life and had also allegedly affected his son.
He stated that both he and Mr. Ahiagba were initiates of Voodoo Afetorku, with Regent Moses Yao Davor serving as the priest. According to Mr. Dotsey, he summoned Mr. Ahiagba before the priest to resolve the matter, but Mr. Ahiagba allegedly failed to appear.
He said he subsequently summoned Mr. Ahiagba before the Divisional Chief of Akuave and other stakeholders, but those efforts also proved unsuccessful.
Mr. Dotsey also provided an audio recording which he alleged contained evidence that Mr. Ahiagba had invoked the wrath of the gods against him. He further stated that Mr. Ahiagba appointed a caretaker for the vehicle during the dispute, to whom he handed over the car keys.
The Duamenefa Foundation subsequently reached out to Mr. Fauster Ahiagba to give him an opportunity to respond to the allegations.
Mr. Ahiagba confirmed that he bought the vehicle for Mr. Dotsey but stated that his nephew subsequently failed to make the agreed payments. He also alleged that while Mr. Dotsey was failing to make the payments, he acquired an ambulance, two private cars and two motorbikes and established a provision store for his wife.
Mr. Ahiagba further alleged that Mr. Dotsey had been telling people that he had not bought a car for him, a development he said prompted him to invoke the wrath of the gods.
As part of its investigation and public education efforts, the Duamenefa Foundation contacted the Centre for National Culture. The Foundation said it was informed that invocation of the wrath of the gods as a means of resolving disputes is against the law and that parties involved in disputes should seek redress through appropriate traditional authorities or the law courts.
After gathering the accounts of the parties, the Foundation referred the matter to the traditional authorities for public arbitration.
Later, a letter was submitted to the Duamenefa Foundation by Mr. Thompson Gafotor, who identified himself as the secretary or spokesperson of the Ahiagba family. In the letter, he requested that the matter be withdrawn to enable the family to intervene under the leadership of Torgbi Zavordiku IV.
The Duamenefa Foundation accepted the request, and a date was subsequently agreed for the arbitration. Copies of the invitation were issued to the Duamenefa Foundation, Fafaa 100.3 FM, the Centre for National Culture and the Ghana Police Service.
Representatives of the institutions were all present at Xavi on September 17, 2026, for the proceedings.
At the initial stage of the arbitration, however, Fafaa 100.3 FM was reportedly prevented from covering the proceedings by Regent Moses Yao Davor, who was also a member of the panel.
The situation reportedly continued for some time before the intervention of Mr. Patrick Dunyo of the Centre for National Culture, Mr. Ketaman Emmanuel Evortepe, Executive President of the Duamenefa Foundation, and personnel of the Ghana Police Service.
Following the intervention, Fafaa 100.3 FM was allowed to continue with its coverage. The incident, however, raised concerns among some observers about why the media outlet was initially prevented from covering a proceeding that had been described as a public arbitration.
When the arbitration commenced, Mr. Robert Dotsey was given the opportunity to present his side of the story. Mr. Fauster Ahiagba was subsequently given the opportunity to respond.
Regent Moses Yao Davor later took the floor and began asking questions. Mr. Patrick Dunyo of the Centre for National Culture, Ketu South, intervened and explained that, in an arbitration, after one party presents his account, the other party should be given an opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification.
The intervention resulted in a heated exchange, with Regent Moses Yao Davor arguing that the matter was a family issue and that the proceedings were intended as a reconciliation.
The position became contentious because the letter addressed to the Duamenefa Foundation, Fafaa 100.3 FM and the state institutions had described the proceedings as a public arbitration.
Another issue that emerged was the role of Regent Moses Yao Davor. It was stated during the proceedings that he had previously handled the matter before it was petitioned to the Duamenefa Foundation, yet he was also serving as a key member of the panel during the arbitration.
After the proceedings, the panel retired to the chamber to deliberate on the matter before announcing its outcome.
According to the outcome presented, the panel held that Mr. Robert Dotsey should not have petitioned the Duamenefa Foundation because there were family elders who could have intervened in the dispute.
The panel also ruled on the expenses Mr. Dotsey said he had incurred while attempting to summon Mr. Ahiagba before various authorities. According to the outcome, the money he claimed to have spent could not be recovered or refunded to him.
Mr. Dotsey was asked to reconcile with Mr. Ahiagba, who is his uncle, with the panel emphasising the importance of respecting family relationships.
He was also directed to pay Ghc500 and provide one bottle of alcohol as an offending fine for petitioning assistance Duamenefa Foundation. Mr. Dotsey pleaded for the fine to be reduced to Ghc200, explaining that he no longer had money.
With regard to Mr. Fauster Ahiagba, the panel also directed him to reconcile with his nephew.
He was ordered to pay Ghc2,000 for failing to honour invitations from the traditional rulers and family elders. He was further directed, according to the outcome announced, to visit the shrines associated with the alleged invocation for what the panel described as necessary spiritual corrections.
On the issue of the vehicle, the panel directed that the car be sold and that the proceeds be used to pay Mr. Ahiagba the amount due to him.
Mr. Ahiagba also pleaded for the Ghc2,000 penalty to be reduced, offering to pay Ghc200.
The outcome of the arbitration subsequently sparked further debate, particularly because the allegations raised by Mr. Robert Dotsey were not considered in the final decision.
His allegations concerning the alleged spiritual attacks and other issues contained in his petition to the Duamenefa Foundation were not addressed in the outcome announced by the panel.
Instead, the final decision focused largely on family reconciliation, the financial dispute surrounding the vehicle and penalties imposed on both parties.
The development has raised questions about how customary arbitration should handle allegations presented during prior investigations and the procedures that should guide proceedings involving traditional authorities, family elders, state institutions and the media.
It has also renewed discussion about the distinction between family reconciliation and public customary arbitration, particularly where allegations involving traditional or spiritual practices form part of a dispute that has already been formally petitioned to an organisation for investigation.
By Hutor Dziwornu, Fafaa 100.3 FM, Dzodze