1.0 Introduction
This article aims to elucidate the Legal and historical context of Bawku for Professor Enoch Opoku Antwi and the general public. It is often expected that experts and academics, such as Professor Antwi, and others speak authoritatively and factually based on their academic standing. However, your recent statements are characterized by speculation and lack of substantiation, compel a critical review.
2.0 Background
The Bawku conflict, dating back to 1957, has tragically claimed numerous lives and it is unfortunate some claim experts and academia often discuss the issues in the national media without the basic fact. Same apply to journalist who Pannel those claim expert does not even read to know the basic facts either.
According to Dramani (2022), experts, particularly in sensitive matters involving human lives, are expected to maintain objectivity and base their judgments on factual evidence. Despite this expectation, individuals, including these self-proclaimed security experts and politicians, often engage in discussions with minimal understanding of the subject matter, resorting to speculation and hearsay. Such notable people include Dr Victor Doke, a Lecturer at the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre (KAIPTC), Professor Enoch Opoku Antwi, Col. Festus Aboagye etc.
Most of these people stated in national media stations that “the supreme court has brought finality to the case and that Abugrago Azoka was pronounce BAWKU Naba”
In the case of Professor Enoch Opoku Antwi, his presentation on TV3’s “TheKeyPoints” deviated from scholarly norms, aligning more with unfounded propaganda just like the other people mentioned above. His reference to a Supreme Court ruling, which he inaccurately attributed a statement concerning “Abugrago Azoka as Bawku NABA,” highlights this deviation. Such misrepresentation not only undermines academic integrity but also represents a missed opportunity to enlighten the public on the Bawku conflict.
Let me first of all state for the record the following;
(i) No where in the supreme court ruling did the ruling pronounce a party as Bawku Naba.
(ii) The Nayiri is the only person that have the traditional authority to enskin the chief of Bawku or otherwise since 1721 and he successfully enskinned eight (8) before the arrival of the British.
(iii) No body have ever contested this fact legally until 1983, when the Kusasis attempted in the National House of chiefs and failed (NHC.2/UR/80, 1983). Since then, the status quo has not change.
(iv) For the purpose of peace and national interest, I will dare and challenge any expert, academia etc to provide alternative argument backed by facts for us to have an academic debate on that matter even if it is national media.
I present a critical review and present factual information to Professor Enoch Opoku Antwi, Dr Victor Doke, Col. Festus Aboagye and any other security expert, panelist and all well-meaning Ghanaians the LEGAL and Historical facts about BAWKU for the purpose of education and policy consideration. I will equally expect them to open up for academic debate on the facts provided for varied perspectives if any
3. SUMMARY OF LEGAL FACTS ABOUT BAWKU; SUMMARY OF THE CASES
Out of a total of 6 court cases, 2 decrees, and 2 committee reports, the Mamprusis won 4 cases, one discontinued and lost one appeal in 1958. The breakdown of the cases include;
3. 1 court Rulings.
(i) The high court of justice, the judicial division held on Saturday 24th may 1958 with civil appeal no. 70/58 before his lordship Mr. Justice A. Ollenu. The Verdict went in favour of the Mamprusis. The court went further to direct the police to arrest Abugrago Azoka if he acts as a chief.
(ii) Tuesday 21st October, 1958, the appeal court verdict went in favour the Kusasis. NB: This was expected because Nkrumah had exile Naa Yirimia to Togo who could not defend himself in cout.
(iii) 25th July 1980, High Court ruling with motion no.23/80 verdict went in favour of the Mamprusis.
(iv) The chieftaincy tribunal of the national house of chiefs’ appeal court held in Kumasi on Friday 20th May, 1983 with ref. no. NHC.2/UR/80. The verdict went in favour of the Mamprusis and went ahead and describe Anichema Abugrago Azoka the petitioner in the last four paragraph of the ruling as “a layman, an ordinary individual or a commoner…., it went on to define a commoner as a non-traditional title holder”
(v) The supreme court in 2003, Writ no. 1/2003. Verdict; application to discontinue case granted with reference made to article 270 and 277 of the 1992 constitution.
(vi) The high court decision on 25th March 2011 at Bolga case no. D16/14/2011. The verdict went in favour of Abdul-Rahman Sulemana Afoli
3. 2 Committees of enquiry reports.
With regards to the committee of enquire reports, the two popular reports are the COL. MINYILA REPORT and the Opoku Afari Committee report. The COL. MINYILA REPORT went in favour of the mamprusis whiles the Opoku Afari Committee report favoured the Kusasis.
3.3 Decrees:
Again, two decrees emerge with regards to Bawku chiftaincy matter. They are the NLCD 112 and the PNDC law 75 in 1984. The NLCD 112 restored the status of chieftaincy to the mamprusis while the PNDC law 75 in 1984 went for Kusasi. The supporting facts/ documents are self-explanatory enough. I attached some of these documents for your further reading and appreciation.
My article will also delve in to the historical expect of the Bawku chieftaincy for easy and clear appreciation.
Bawku is part and parcel of the Mamprugu kingdom. Abubakari (2024) indicated that in the pre-colonial time, the sphere of influence of Mamprugu transcended far beyond this geographical area. A Frenchman and explorer, Captain Lois Binger, who traveled through the territory in August 1888 estimated that the Mamprugu kingdom existed as far back as 13th or 14th Centuries. According to Captain Lois Binger, “the Mamprugunaba united under his authority, not only the Mamprusi, but also the region of Sansanne-Mango and all the Grunsi as far as the Red Volta….” (Captain L. Binger, 1892).
Other scholars such the A.A Illiasu (1971 and 1975) and Susan Drucker Brown (1975) described the sphere of Mamprugu influence to be coterminous with the Mossi land in Burkina Faso to the north, Sansané Mango in Togo to the east, the Dagomba to the south and Wala and Gonja to the west. Illiasu’s account also corroborated the above narration when he indicated that during Naa Gbewaa’s time, Mamprugu authority extended as far north as Sanga, as far south as present day Dagomba, then largely populated by the Konkomba, as far east as Mamprugu where the mother of Tohugu, one of Gbewa’s illustrious sons, came from. It is possible that even the Daboya district, later accretion to the state of Gonja, formed part of Gbewa’s kingdom. It was thus an extensive domain, stretching to the Black as well as the White Volta.
After the death of Naa Gbewa, Tohugu removed the capital of an established kingdom from Pusiga to Mamprugu, (Tousik) a village in present day Togo, where his mother hailed from. This was not an uncommon practice and, indeed, Tohugu’s immediate successor, Na Zobzia, – removed the capital from Mamprugu to Gambaga while Na Atabia took it finally to Nalerigu (Illiasu, 1975).
Mamprugu began to lose control over most parts of its territories, during the Scramble for and Partitioning of Africa by the Europeans powers. The territories to the north bordering the Mossi fell under the French Colonial powers, while those territories to the east came under the Germans and the French authorities.
The remaining parts of the Kingdom, under British Rule, were still vast, and effective administration, in terms of regular visits, effective communication, and effective monitoring became a challenge. In many instances, succession disputes at the center, and the infirmity of the kings due to old age, further contributed to the weakening control over the territory.
The other non-Mamprusi territories, were ruled like a federal system, where the Nayiri appointed chiefs of their own to rule on his behalf (the king). These representative chiefs were answerable to the Nayiri. They paid royalties and homage to the Nayiri. As a result of the vastness of the kingdom, the centre could no longer maintain regular control over these people, and they gradually regained their autonomy.
Then came, the colonial influence. Mamprugu came under Colonial Rule during the reign of Na Bariga, Yamusah Salifu (1864-1902). On 24th December 1896, the British hosted their flag at Gambaga, signaling the beginning of the British administration. The head-long race between the European powers was over – the Gold Coast government had occupied the heart of Mampurugu, from Accra. During the next ten years, the British established the administration and instituted the policies which set the tone for sixty years of colonial rule.
According to David C. Davis (1987) “The principal and immediate consequence of the European presence was that the locus of sovereignty in Mampurugu was changed and the source, if not the use, of authority was altered. Responsibility for the basic political functions, including external defense, maintenance of internal order, and regulation of matters “affecting the welfare of society as a whole,” was appropriated by the colonial administration. At the same time, the administration expressly claimed the various powers attached to these functions: the power to tax, the power to legislate, the power to administer justice, the power to appoint and to dismiss officials, the power to regulate the economy, the power to command labor, and the power to coerce. Mampurugu was no longer a sovereign state” (Davis, 1987: 627). Though Gambaga remained the headquarters of the British in the Northern Territories until 1907 when the capital was moved to Tamale.
The British introduced the Indirect Rule system. This system, allowed the Nayiri to still rule over all the tribes in Mamprugu and the whole of the Upper East region. In the same vein, the Chakosi were taken away from the Nayiri and added to Ya Na in the Eastern Dagbon for proximity and administrative convenience.
The chieftaincy of Bawku can be traced back to 1721. Historically, the Bawku chieftaincy and the birth right of the enskinning authority the Nayiri has never been challenge or contested anybody or group of individuals. The first attempt was in 1983 at the NHC by the Kusasi which they failed (NHC.2/UR/80, 1983). Since then, no attempt has been made. I once again challenge anybody to contest this fact with evidence.
The first chief of BAWKU ruled from 1721-1732. a Mamprusi prince by the name Naa Ali the son of NAA ATABIA Zontuua the 10th king of the Manprugu and the Nayiri from (1652-1682). Since then, there have been several chiefs and the current Bawku NAA enskinned by the Nayiri is the 15th
Let me state for a fact and for the records again that by the time the British arrived in the Bawku area around 1907, Bawku had 8th chiefs. It was during the reign of the 8th Bawku Naba, Naa Mahama Mamboda (1896-1908) that the British mounted the union Jack or the British flag in Naa Mahama Mamboda’s palace. Even in 1932 when the British agent D.C Syme organized the election of the head chief of Bawku Abugrago Azoka was not a chief.
4. Ownership of Bawku.
There is no historical evidence that suggest that Kusasis ever conquered Mamprusi or the Mossi-Dagbamba in war. The legal and historical records provide also indicated that the mamprusis are the original owners of Bawku.
It is very bizarre then, to hear a professor and other experts who should know better to attribute and refer to Tindanaship or sacrifices and pouring of libation as the basis for someone to be the owner of the town. Well, for the purpose of education it is possible that the professor is not a historian and probably do not have a fair appreciation of the Mossi-Dagbamba culture and therefore I will have to pardon you but rather give you some education.
In the Mossi-Dagbamba culture, sacrifices and pouring of libation are mend for non-royals. Fetish Priest make sacrifices and pouring of libation. They are earth priest just like the church priest with the sole purpose of making sacrifices to the gods under the instruction of the chief.
Can we say the church priest is the president of a country per your analogy?
In the Mossi-Dagbamba culture, the earth priest is called “Tinnadana to mean Fetish Priest or Earth Goddest”. They are authorized to perform sacred rituals of a religion, especially as a mediatory agent between humans and one or more deities (Abdul-Hamid, 2010).
Please take note that they do not perform other sacred or rituals belonging to individual or family heads. They only do general sacrifice and libation on behave of the chief of the town. Anyone can cross check this from the Mamprusis, Dagbombas, the Moss, the Nanumbas, the Walas, etc emphasis is mine
Therefore, for anyone to thing that pouring libations make someone that owner of the land or town is just very funny and lame argument.
However, for the true owners of Bawku, Besides, the legal and historical facts of conquering, you can read books like R. S Rattray and Syme. Rattray stated categorically that “Bawk (Bawku) are really Mamprusis, not Kusasi been founded by the ruling class” (Rattary, 1932. P.374-375) and also read the introductory part of Syme (1932) “The Kusasi -A shot History” for who the Kusasis are and juxtapose that to the Mamprusis.
The Kusasi and Mamprusi does not share anything in common besides, inter-marriage. There is no any Kusasi or any historian that can trace the Kusasis claim of chieftaincy in BAWKU beyond 1957 and I throw the challenge to you as a researcher and a professor to provide any evidence be it scholarly or otherwise if you can.
I am happy you said you are from a royal family. If Bawku chieftaincy started in 1721 as I have provided in evidence how come Kusasi are chiefs today?
5.0 The Bawku Conflict
In a comprehensive analysis, Dramani (2022) provides an overview of the origins of the Bawku conflict, which dates back to the 1957 clash. Over the years, this conflict has continually assumed a political dimension, influenced and perpetuated by successive governments to the present day. The current government statements and posture has worsened the conflict. There are several parallel chiefs in Ghana. Ranging from Accra to even the president backyard.
I will refer you to a letter written by ASANTEMAN COUNCIL, MANHYIA PALACE on the 5th January, 2024 with reference no. Ref: ASC/RD.1/SF.55/VOL23/50 with the caption: Introduction of the newly installed paramount chief of SAMPA as one of the many cases. Sampa had already installed and gazetted paramount chief before that installation. The Nayiri in a similar vein enskinned the chief of Bawku but governmenent as a result of political meddling and lack of respect for the northern descent issue an arrest warrant for the arrest of both the Nayiri and newly enskinned chief of Bawku. What in your opinion is the cause of the varied treatment on same or similar issue?
Dramani and Sebastian (2022) Has Provide a Brief background to the 1957 clash or Bawku conflict. Since then, the conflict continues to take a political tone even from successive government till date
6. CONCLUSION:
Base on the legal and historical facts presented Bawku and its chieftaincy belong to Mamprusis and not Kusasi. So, on what basis will the Kusasis or anyone claim that the ownership of Bawku belongs to be Kusasis with these facts if not for mischief or propaganda?
7. Recommendation.
I urge self-proclaim experts, professors, journalist and the government communicators to adopt a neutral stance and facilitate impartial argument and mediation processes. The government should also ensure that its policies do not inadvertently escalate tensions or favor one group over the other.
Legal Clarification. CSO’s legal, security experts should go for legal interpretation of the SC ruling and stop misleading the public. The government should also strengthen legal frameworks to clearly delineate chieftaincy and territorial rights, based on historical and legal precedents. Effective enforcement of these laws is crucial to prevent further disputes.
NB: I belief this short yet costly article will redirect and shape discourses with regards to Bawku conflict and matter arising by experts and journalist.
References:
A letter from registrar Upper Region House of Chiefs (UHC) 85F. 4/129, to the Nayiri, 27th Mar. 1972. NRG8/3/82 letter No., Upper Region House of chiefs to the Nayiri, 27th Mar. 1972.
Abdul-Hamid M. (2010). the Influence of Islam on an African People: The Case of the Dagomba of Northern Ghana. The Int. Conference on Universalism, Relativism & Intercultural Philosophy. Univ of Cape Coast, 3-5 Feb 2010, 2–20. https://www.academia.edu/1701136/The_Influence_of_Islam_on_an_African_People_The_Case_of_the_Dagomba_People_of_Northern_Ghana
Abubakari, A. (2024). “REKINDLING THE GLORY OF MAMPRUGU: OUR COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY”. unpublished speech Delivered at the 1st Annual Congress of Mamprugu Zaabuni Youth for Development, held at Walewale, Astro-turf 7th January, 2024.
Davis, C. D. (1987). “Then the White Man Came with His Whitish Ideas…”: The British and the Evolution of Traditional Government in Mampurugu, The International Journal of African Historical Studies, Vol. 20, No. 4 (1987), pp. 627-646
Dramani, A. and SEBASTIAN, P. (2022). “State Intervention and the Labyrinth of Communal Conflict in Ghana: How Kwame Nkrumah Missed the Opportunity to Address the Bawku Conflict.” APSA Preprints. doi: 10.33774/apsa-2022-q0dxn.
Drucker-Brown, Susan 1975. Ritual Aspects of the Mamprusi Kingship. African Studies Social
Illiasu, A. A, 1971. ‘The Origins of the Mossi-Dagomba States’ Research Review (University of Ghana) 7: 95-113.
Illiasu, A. A. (1975). The Establishment of British Administration in Mamprugu,1898-1937. Transactions of the Historical Society of Ghana. Xvi (1):1-28.
Research Documents Volume 8. Cambridge: African Studies Center.
Susan Drucker Brown, S (1975). Ritual Aspects of the Mamprusi Kingship, Cambridge.
Email: jambeduabu@gmail.com