Concerned youth of Ho Zongo have raised concerns about the alleged involvement of Stephen Tetteh, Secretary to the Asogli State, in the ongoing Imamship dispute in the community, calling for clarification over the installation of Ali Muniru at the Asogli Palace.
The youth are questioning whether the installation was intended to recognise Mr Muniru as an Imam of the Asogli State and whether such recognition should be considered equivalent to acceptance by the Ho Zongo Muslim community.
In a statement dated October 16, 2026, the group argued that recognition by a traditional institution should not automatically be interpreted as acceptance by a religious community whose leadership arrangements are determined through its own recognised processes.
The statement expressed concern that the Asogli State’s office may have been used to give Mr Muniru institutional recognition in a dispute concerning the leadership of the Ho Zongo Muslim community.
The youth stressed that the Asogli State, as a traditional institution, should maintain impartiality and respect the interests of the communities involved in the dispute.
They cautioned against any action that could create the perception that a disputed religious leader was being imposed on the community without the acceptance of its recognised religious and traditional structures.
Concerns over alleged pressure on authorities
The group also raised allegations concerning Mr Tetteh’s interactions with security officials and public authorities over the dispute.
According to the statement, the youth are concerned about alleged engagements involving the Police Crime Office, the Municipal Police Commander, the Regional Police Commander and the Volta Regional Minister, which they perceive as potentially intimidating or exerting undue pressure in support of Mr Muniru.
The allegations were contained in the group’s statement and had not been independently verified.
The youth maintained that the dispute should be resolved through legitimate, transparent and peaceful processes that respect the religious leadership structures of the Ho Zongo Muslim community and comply with applicable laws.
They rejected what they described as attempts to use institutional influence or prestige to settle the sensitive religious leadership dispute without meaningful engagement with the community concerned.
Youth demand public clarification
The group has called on Mr Tetteh to publicly explain his role in organising Mr Muniru’s installation at the Asogli Palace.
It also wants the Asogli State to clarify whether the installation was intended to confer on Mr Muniru the position of Imam of the Asogli State.
Additionally, the youth urged the traditional institution to ensure that its involvement does not deepen divisions or undermine public confidence in its neutrality.
They called for respect for the recognised religious and traditional processes of the Ho Zongo Muslim community, warning that actions perceived as favouring one side could complicate efforts to achieve a lasting resolution.
The statement further urged the police and other public authorities to act independently, fairly and within their lawful mandates.
Appeal to Asogli State
The youth appealed to the Asogli State to address their concerns and take steps to protect the dignity and impartiality of the traditional institution.
They argued that no institution, regardless of its standing, should be perceived as imposing a religious leader on a community where the legitimacy of that leadership remains contested.
Copies of the statement were addressed to the Volta Regional Minister in Ho, the Bureau of National Investigations, the Volta Regional Police Commander, the Ho Municipal Police Commander, the 66 Artillery Regiment, the Ho Municipal Chief Executive and the Asogli State.
The group said its concerns were aimed at promoting transparency, justice and peaceful coexistence in Ho Zongo.
The statement did not include responses from Mr Tetteh, the Asogli State, Mr Muniru or the security authorities named in the allegations.
Their responses, together with clarification of the circumstances surrounding the installation and the applicable recognition processes, would be necessary to establish the full facts of the dispute.
