Re: Bawku Crisis: Truth Must Be told - Part two (2)

From the discussions in Part One (1), it becomes abundantly clear that the attempt by Rev Azumah to latch onto the self-contradictory and political findings/ conclusions of the 1958 Opoku Afari Committee is unsustainable. For instance, the committee after acknowledging that the customary law, customs and traditions pertaining to the Bawku chieftaincy since the time of Naa Ali until the time of the inquiry (1721 - 1958) was that Mamprusis were chiefs with the Nayiri as King maker, it made the bizaare contradictory conclusion that Abugrago Azoka was validly elected as chief of Bawku per the "customs and traditions". This was despite the fact that Abugrago Azoka was not a Mamprusi neither was he enskinned by the King maker, Nayiri. Furthermore, not only was the so-called election of Abugrago Azoka against the customs and traditions, it was actually an illegality against the law at the time (State Councils Ordinance).

Also, the committee after acknowledging the fact that Naa Ali was the first Bawku Naaba went further to say the Mamprusis came to Bawku 150 years ago. On his part, Abugrago Azoka claimed that Mamprusis came to Bawku with the British as cooks. A simple arithmetic would have told the committee that 150 years before 1958 is 1808. And so their assertion is very inaccurate because all the historical records puts the reign of Naa Atabia who founded the Bawku skin in1721 as 1690 - 1740/1 and not 1808. Secondly, it was not until 1896 that the British arrived in the Northern territories and got to Bawku in 1907 which is over 185 years after the Mamprusis had founded and ruled Bawku as established above and in Part One. So it is arithmetically wrong and fallacious for the committee to have accepted the assertions of Abugrago Azoka that the Mamprusis came to Bawku as cooks of the British. This was the clear fraud that was perpetrated and to which Rev Azumah is happy to associate with.

In addition, as part of "telling the truth", Ghanaians deserve to know that it was the attempted illegal "election" of a parallel chief in 1957 by persons claiming to be Kusasis that marked the genesis of the Bawku conflict. The key question Ghanaians would love to ask Rev Azumah is that, did the Mamprusis issue violent threats at the time when the Kusasis enskinned a parallel "chief"? Absolutely No. The Mamprusis were told by Government and the security agencies that the matter was a civil matter. So Mamprusis had to file a case at the court citing the Kusasis and Abugrago Azoka for contempt. But the Kusasis refused to enter appearance and relied on the Government which was hostile to the Nayiri to set up a committee of inquiry on the subject. This was despite the fact that the then Government Agent and Regional Commissioner wrote separate memos to the Parliamentary Secretary for Local Government telling him why it was unconstitutional to set up such an inquiry. But the Government proceeded to set up the political committee because it viewed the Nayiri as an enemy because he was the patron of the Northern People's Party which had entered into an alliance with the National Liberation Movement. As such, it is not surprising that the committee's findings contradict logic, common sense and the facts.

Rev Azumah further claimed the Mamprusis contested the findings of the committee at the Appeals court. Contrary to his assertion, the Mamprusis obtained a High Court ruling which set aside the findings of the committee so how can the Mamprusis win a case at the High Court and then go to the Appeals court again? It was the Government that refused to implement the decision of the High Court which was in favor of the Mamprusis. In fact, the Government issued a release saying they still recognized Abugrago Azoka even though the High Court had set aside the conclusions of the committee. They went further to appeal the decision of the High court for the Kusasis at the Appeals Court whilst exiling the 13th Bawku Naaba Yirimea Mahama to Togo who could not get a chance to make his case. A clear miscarriage of justice.

Thus, Rev Azumah's claim that NLCD 112 deskinned chiefs simply because they were sympathetic to the Convention People's Party of which Abugrago Azoka was one is inaccurate. On the contrary, NLCD 112 restored the normalcy and sanctity of the chieftaincy institution in over 500 areas across Ghana of which Bawku was not an exception. This led to the restoration of chiefs that were deskinned, destooled and exiled for political reasons by the CPP Government which replaced them with political stooges like Abugrago Azoka. And if the NLCD 112 did prove anything, it was the fact that the model of peaceful co-existence in Bawku since it was founded in 1721 until the political interference in 1958 by politicians was the best model for the ethnically diverse Bawku Traditional Area. And indeed after the status quo was restored and the Nayiri enskinned Naa Adam Zangbeo the 14th Bawku Naaba in 1967, there was a very peaceful coexistence between all tribes with Mamprusis being chiefs in their cantons, Kusasis chiefs in their cantons, Bissas chiefs in their cantons, Bimobas chiefs in their cantons, etc. Sadly, in 1979 despite the 14th Bawku Naaba Adam Zangbeo being the Vice President of the Upper Regional House of Chiefs, legally gazetted and recognized by the National House of Chiefs, the Kusasi Youth Association led by Cletus Avoka, John Ndebugre, Sulley Agholisi et al claimed they had once again elected a parallel chief for Bawku. The Mamprusis again did not issue violent threats but went to the High Court to get a restraining order against the Kusasis to which the court granted on 25th July 1980. Not even the 31 March 1983 findings of the eminent chiefs committee set up by Asantehene Otumfour Opoku Ware II and the 20 May 1983 ruling by the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs all of which were in favor of the Mamprusis was able to cause the Kusasis to back down on their illegal actions. They blatantly refused to abide by these rulings and through their politicians were able to get PNDCL 75 promulgated in their favor. PNDCL 75 purported to have deskinned the Bawku Naaba who passed away as the gazetted chief with a High Court and National House of Chiefs ruling in his favor whilst claiming to have enskinned a dead man who died a commoner after pronounced as such by the National House of Chiefs. PNDCL 75 was so a bad law to the extent that the 1984 Committee to Investigate the Bawku Lands Dispute found that it was the primary cause of the violent nature of the conflict hence should be repealed. It was finally repealed in 1996 by Act 516.

SUPREME COURT RULING
Rev Azumah claimed under this heading that the Mamprusis realized their case had no legal merit and decided to withdraw the case at the Supreme Court. His claim is very disingenuous and explains why their people do not know the truth about the matter. In simple terms, the Mamprusis were contesting the constitutionality of PNDCL 75 described above; the law which was described by the 1984 Committee to Investigate the Bawku Lands Dispute as the cause of the violent conflcit in Bawku and hence should be repealed. After filing the case in 2003, the Mamprusis realized the law had already been repealed in 1996. Thus, every Ghaianain would know that it was not necessary to continue a case against a law that was repealed. This was the reason why the Mamprusis applied to discontinue the case to which the court granted without liberty to reapply specifically on PNDCL 75 because it was already a repealed law and article 270 and 277 because they were matters pertaining to chieftaincy of which the Supreme Court had no original jurisdiction to arbitrate. This is the simple matter which Rev Azumah and his likes have consistently misrepresented with fallacious statements that the Supreme Court affirmed Kusasis as owners of Bawku.

Finally, eventhough the relevant issues raised by Rev Azumah in his articles have been sufficiently addressed, I wish to conclude by responding to some outright misrepresentations raised in part 2 of his piece. This will leave a long lasting impression on the minds of the reader as to how Rev Azumah, who eventhough claims to be an academic and reverend minister, is very disingenuous and dishonest with the Bawku issue. Rev Azumah tried to dispute the fact that politically, Mamprusis are aligned to the NPP/UP tradition whilst Kusasis are aligned to the CPP/NDC tradition. The fact that Mamprusis are aligned politically to the NPP/UP tradition has never been in doubt. At the emergence of party politics in the 1950s, the Nayiri was the patron of the Northern People's Party which entered into an alliance with the National Liberation Movement. These two parties are the origin to which the United Party and subsequently New Patriotic Party were formed. Furthermore, at the time of the alliance between the Northern People's Party and the National Liberation Movement, Naa Saa Wuni Bugri was the 12th Bawku Naaba and he was Mamprusi. He was a very strong member of the alliance and the Asantehene who was the patron of NLM recognized this by sending a powerful delegation to Bawku. Also, Imoro Salifu, Adam Amandi, Idana Asigri, Sandow Gumah and several other stalwarts of the NPP/UP/NPP tradition are Mamprusi princes from the Bawku area. So what is Rev Azumah fighting against? But that is very typical of him and his likes. They spend all their energy trying to dispute facts whilst at the same time propagating falsehoods.

Also, it is not true that Binduri is "pure" Kusasi and that their Member of Parliament is "pure" Kusasi as Rev Azumah claims. Binduri is a pure Mamprusi canton and this fact is recorded in all historical books. The usurpation of the Binduri skin from it's original Mamprusi owners does not make it Kusasi. The MP for Binduri is originally a Bissa by tribe and so if he thinks his identity can be changed to a Kusasi for political gains then that is his own matter.

Rev Azumah further falsely claims that all the 6 administrative districts in the Bawku area (Bawku, Garu, Zebilla, Binduri, Pusiga, Tempane) are "pure" Kusasis and that is why they want to name the traditional area Kusaug. We have already established in Part 1 of this article how Bawku is purely Mamprusi and how Pusiga the ancestral home has always been under the Nayiri hence cannot be Kusasi territory. Binduri was also founded by Mamprusis and this is clearly captured in historical sources. Garu which was formed out of Kugri is purely a Mossi division. In fact the Kusasis themselves acknowledged this fact in a letter to the Government in 1966. Zebilla even though has been populated by most Kusasis due to migrations from their ancestral home in Burkina Faso was founded by Apotuba and Abiengo who are Talensi in origin. This is clearly captured in historical records and re-echoed by Syme in his book. And the Talensi roots of Apotuba and Abiengo was further traced to a Mamprusi orgin. Tempane district is originally populated by Mamprusis, Nabdams and Bimobas. This is the reality but in their unending quest to justify their usurpation and claim of majority, Rev Azumah and his likes jettison the facts and propagate misconceptions. Also, his claim about Kusasis being tendanas and hence owners of the land shows how he is deliberately twisting the customs and traditions of the Bawku area as well as that of the entire Northern Ghana. Tendanas are earth priests and not owners of the land. This is common knowledge. Secondly, the number one shrine in the Bawku area is the Gbewaa shrine. Instead of saying that Mamprusis do not pacify the shrines, he should ask himself why the tendanas are pacifying Gbewaa who is the founder of the Mole Dagbani Kingdom instead of the founder of Kusasis since their leader Aninchema Abugrago falsely claims Gbewaa came and met them (Kusasis) in Pusiga? He should also ask himself why the tendanas he claims are Kusasis will swear by Tosugu (father of Mamprusis) and mention his name first before pacifying the shrines in the Bawku area? This is simply because they are acknowledging the fact that the land belongs to Tosugu and his father Naa Gbewaa and that they the tendanas are only earth priests.

By this, I will entreat Rev Azumah to preach peace as a reverend minister, show fidelity to the facts as an academic and above all know that the truth about Bawku can never be buried with their carefully calculated misrepresentations. He should know that some Ghanaians who for several years have been misled by their misrepresentations now know the truth and no amount of his twists and turns in the name of "telling the truth" can mislead them.

Thank you
Written by:
Dr. Issah Imoro
Grandson of 12th Bawku Naaba Naa Saa Wuni Bugri

([email protected])