Unmasking the impact of colonialism on gender equality in African legal history
Think colonialism only changed borders? Think again. Pioneering research reveals how British colonial rule didn't just impose foreign laws - it dismantled indigenous legal systems and marginalised women who once played central roles. Before 1890, Asante women in Ghana shaped the law and exercised authority in courts and communities alike. Through her work, Paulien Broens uncovers the overlooked power of pre-colonial Ghanaian women and reveals how colonial rule entrenched a legacy of gender inequality that continues to this day.
In our interview, she talks about how colonial administrators ignored and erased female legal authority, the resilience of Asante women, and the ongoing fight for recognition in Ghana today.
Paulien, your research highlights the profound injustice of colonial gender impositions while celebrating the resilience of pre-colonial African cultures. You've shown how British colonial law erased the central role of Asante women in legal practice, replacing an egalitarian system with male-dominated courts. By rediscovering these suppressed histories, your work calls for a deeper understanding of colonialism's impact on gender equality and legal traditions. How do these lessons resonate in today's ongoing struggles for justice and inclusion?
The erasure of women's roles in pre-colonial Asante legal systems by British colonial law is a reminder of how colonialism not only disrupted political and economic systems but also deeply restructured gender dynamics. In today’s struggles for justice and inclusion, understanding historical patterns allows us to recognize that inequalities aren't accidental but are the results of systems of exclusion. This insight urges us to critically examine our present institutions—whether legal, political, or social—and question whose voices they prioritize and whose they marginalize.
You mentioned that women played a central role in these systems. What kind of legal influence or power did they have?
In Asante society, female rulers held significant legal authority within a structured hierarchy, from the efiefo (household level) to the aman (states) and ultimately Asante Union. Their authority was fourfold. First, they presided over their own courts, handling cases such as efiesem (household disputes), abusuasem (matrilineal matters), awaresem (marriage issues), duabo (cursing cases), and market disputes, with litigants of all genders seeking justice under their rulings. Second, they participated in male rulers’ courts, primarily dealing with criminal and land cases, where they could question litigants, challenge verdicts, and even rebuke male rulers. Third, as the aberewa or wisdom personified, female rulers privately advised male rulers on legal matters, influencing decisions behind the scenes. Lastly, they served as a final recourse for dissatisfied litigants, reviewing and mitigating sentences handed down by male rulers.
Then came the British colonial period. Can you explain how their legal systems and gender norms disrupted these practices? What changed for Asante women in particular?
British colonial administrators brought their own preconceived stereotypes about African societies, imagining male ‘Chiefs’ ruling ‘tribes’ who they assumed were linguistically, culturally and religiously homogenous. Their belief in the ‘natural’ separation of sexes confined women to domestic roles and led them to dismiss the possibility of female authority, especially in Africa, which they deemed inferior. Colonial rule also served as a playground for the assertion of British masculinity, driven by anxieties over women’s growing rights in Britain. With the colonisation of Asante in 1901, the British exclusively controlled and recognized male rulers, defining ‘Native Authority’ and ‘Native Courts’ through Orders in Council and Ordinances as male. It wasn’t until 1947 that a female ruler was officially acknowledged as ‘Native Authority’ for the first time in Asante. Female rulers, though, continued to exercise their authority parallel to the colonial legal system. However, their exclusion entailed that none of their verdicts or legal decisions were recorded in writing or recognised by British authorities, leading to loss of authority over their people and lands. Furthermore, the colonial legislation allowed male rulers to exploit this legislation to bypass female authority, particularly in succession and land disputes, attempting to reshape Asante law to favor male dominance.
Was this erasure intentional, or was it an unintended consequence of the imposition of British norms?
This question has caused many sleepless nights. It is difficult—if not impossible—to answer definitively, as the written records left by colonial administrators do not clearly indicate a deliberate, collective effort to erase female rule. At the onset of colonization, the sources suggest that many colonial administrators were largely ignorant of Asante law and authority, operating from a position of profound misunderstanding. However, by the 1920s, anthropologists began studying Asante rulers – both male and female – and providing colonial administrators with information about female political and legal authority. These administrators deliberately ignored this knowledge and chose to keep the legislation unchanged. If I were to infer their intentions, I would suggest that, initially, the exclusion of female authority was unintentional, rooted in stereotypes and ignorance of Asante governance. Over time, however, it evolved into wilful ignorance, where information about women’s roles in political and legal systems was consciously sidelined.
Despite these disruptions, do we see traces of women's legal roles in Ghana today? Or have these histories been completely erased?
Women’s legal authority remains evident in Ghana today. Female rulers continue to hold courts and assist male rulers in their legal jurisdiction. Historical records show that these women’s courts operated alongside the colonially recognized courts, demonstrating that their authority never disappeared. However, after Ghana’s decolonization in 1957, national legislation addressing indigenous rulers followed the precedent set by colonial laws, recognizing only male rulers. Female rulers remain excluded from national legislation and from discussions surrounding the recognition of indigenous rule. The ‘Queen Mother’s Platform of Ghana’ is actively advocating for their inclusion. Despite their continued authority, female rulers are still fighting for equal recognition in the legal and political landscape.
What inspired you to focus on this topic?
During my Bachelor studies, I began reading the works of Ifi Amadiume and Oyèrónkẹ́ Oyěwùmí and was immediately intrigued by their arguments about indigenous gendered rule in African communities and how the British Empire imposed a binary gender division that diminished women’s authority. For my first master’s degree, I conducted research in Tanzania, focusing on the ngole, or the wives of male rulers, examining their authority and how it changed under colonization. For my second master’s degree, I researched the Iya Oba, or ‘Queen Mother’, in Nigeria. This research very early on solidified my passion for studying female indigenous rule and the British Empire’s influence on it, as soon as it became clear to me how little extensive research was done on this, and how male-centred colonial legal history writing continues to be.