The Overlords Or Kings Of Ghana – Part Ii: Fundamental Questions And The Dangerous Precedent Of Distorting Chieftaincy Traditions

In the first part of this series, we explored the colonial origins of the term Overlord, its application in Ghana’s chieftaincy lexicon, and the constitutionally recognised status of five key traditional rulers, including the Nayiri of Mamprugu. We also examined the troubling attempt by Kusasi political actors to confer the title of Overlord on Abugrago Aninchema, who purports to be the Bawku Naaba, despite lacking legitimate traditional and legal

recognition.
In this second installment, we go further by raising critical questions and exploring the potential ramifications of this distortion of Ghana’s sacred chieftaincy institution. These questions are not rhetorical—they demand answers from custodians of law, culture, and governance.

1. Who Enskinned Abugrago Aninchema as Bawku Naaba?

The core of any chieftaincy claim lies in its enskinment process. In the case of Abugrago Aninchema, one must ask:

Under whose authority was he installed?

Was his enskinment conducted by the Nayiri, the only recognised traditional authority with jurisdiction over the Bawku skin?

If not, then what body or group performed the enskinment, and under what legal or customary framework?

A chieftaincy title cannot be valid if it is not conferred by the legitimate kingmakers under customary law. Anything short of this is a self-declaration, not a traditional enskinment. The political interference in our sacred chieftaincy system must be checked. This may be seen as an isolated case; Bawku, between Mamprusi and Kusasi. The danger lies in the meddling of politicians in our chieftaincy matters for their parochial political interest. After Bawku, which place will be their next target?

2. What is the Chieftaincy Lineage of Abugrago Aninchema?

Tradition is anchored in lineage. The National House of Chiefs in 1983 dismissed Abugrago’s father as a commoner with no royal ancestry in the Mamprugu tradition. This raises further questions:

Can Aninchema trace his claim through a recognised royal line of Bawku skins historically appointed by the Nayiri or by Kusasi chieftaincy tradition?

Has his lineage ever been recorded in the Chieftaincy Bulletin or recognised by any Regional House of Chiefs as chieftaincy tradition and customs demand? Emphasis is placed on the highlighted part of the question.

A chief without a royal lineage under the accepted traditions of succession is no chief at all— regardless of the social or political support he may command.

3. When Was Kusaug Established as a Kingdom?

The Kusasi narrative now portrays Bawku as the capital of the "Kusaug Kingdom," but:

When was Kusaug recognised as an autonomous kingdom?

Was it ever mentioned as a kingdom in pre-colonial, colonial, or post-independence records?

If Kusaug is indeed a kingdom, who is its enskinning authority? Who are its recognised kingmakers?

Concerned traditional leaders, royals and key stakeholders in Ghana’s chieftaincy and traditional leadership must be worried by these questions.

Historical records, including Ladouceur (1979), make clear that Bawku was a sub-chieftaincy under Mamprugu, not an independent kingdom. Creating kingdoms through political

narrative rather than historical truth is a dangerous distortion.

4. Are Kusasi the Majority in the Bawku Traditional Area?

Even if this were true (which is debatable), majority ethnicity does not override chieftaincy customs:

Should numbers dictate who becomes chief, regardless of lineage?

What precedent would this set for cosmopolitan cities like Accra, Tamale, or Kumasi, where ethnic minorities often outnumber indigenous groups?

Ghanaian chieftaincy is not democratic populism; it is hereditary, ritualistic, and deeply grounded in lineage, not numbers.

5. Who Are the Recognised Kingmakers of the Bawku Skin?

Who has historically selected and enskinned the Bawku Naaba? Is there any legally recognised change in this process?

Can a group of individuals, outside the Mamprugu hierarchy, assume the role of kingmakers?

Any installation of a chief that ignores traditional kingmakers is void ab initio—invalid from the start.

6. Why Is Abugrago Not Recognised by the National House of Chiefs as Overlord or Zugraan?

If the Kusasi claim is legitimate, why has the National House of Chiefs not gazetted or recorded him as overlord or zugraan of the Bawku Traditional Area or Kusaug kingdom?

Why is his name missing from the official registry of chiefs as overlord?

Why has no constitutional or legislative instrument affirmed his claim as overlord?

The silence of the highest traditional body in Ghana speaks volumes. It underscores the illegitimacy of the claim. And any attempt by government or political actors to perpetuate this illegality would not be countenance.

A Threat to the Chieftaincy Institution of Ghana

What is unfolding in Bawku is more than a localised dispute. It is a test case of whether political influence and ethnic propaganda can override centuries of established tradition. If allowed to stand:

What prevents other ethnic groups from staging similar takeovers of traditionally recognised skins?

Will political partisans start enskinning their preferred chiefs nationwide?

This trend, if unchecked, may spark numerous ethnopolitical crises and bring the entire chieftaincy system into disrepute.

Conclusion:

This is a dangerous precedent which must be condemned by all Ghanaians who so cherish and respect our chieftaincy and traditional institution which has served and preserved our identity as a people.

Ghana’s chieftaincy system has survived colonialism, republicanism, and modern statehood because of its adherence to sacred tradition and legitimacy. Political opportunism must not be allowed to unravel this.

Traditional leaders, civil society, scholars and state institutions must confront this creeping politicisation of chieftaincy and reject false claimants and distortions—no matter how popular they may be.

As custodians of culture and governance, we must ask and answer the hard questions. The future of Ghana’s chieftaincy institution depends on it.

References (from Part I retained)

Boahen, A. A. (1987). African Perspectives on Colonialism. The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ladouceur, P. A. (1979). Chiefs and Politicians: The Politics of Regionalism in Northern Ghana. Longman.

Odotei, I. K., & Awedoba, A. K. (Eds.). (2006). Chieftaincy in Ghana: Culture, Governance and Development. Sub-Saharan Publishers.

Constitution of the Republic of Ghana (1992), Article 270. Chieftaincy Act, 2008 (Act 759).

Chieftaincy (Membership of Regional Houses of Chiefs) Instrument, 2020 (L.I. 2409).

   Comments0