Response To Inaccuracies In The Wikipedia Article On Naa Gbewaa And The Origins Of The Mole-Dagbamba Kingdoms

Introduction
Mamprugu holds sacred the ancestral bonds that unite the Mole-Dagbamba peoples—Mamprusi, Dagomba (Yooba), and Nanumba—whose roots trace back to the great Naa Gbewaa. For centuries, this fraternal connection has been honoured and preserved through oral tradition, cultural memory, and historical continuity. However, recent attempts—particularly reflected in the Wikipedia article on Naa Gbewaa edited by one Winbeneti—to distort this shared heritage and misrepresent the historical narrative demand a firm and factual response.

While our forebears cautioned against engaging in divisive debates with our Yooba brothers, the persistent rewriting of history by self-seeking individuals leaves us no choice but to set the record straight. From the rebranding of the name "Dagbon," the adoption of "Gbewaa Palace," to current assertions of superiority, these actions undermine not only the legacy of our ancestors but also the foundations of unity among our people.

This article aims to challenge these inaccuracies by presenting the truth grounded in well-established oral traditions, respected historical research, and the enduring authority of Mamprugu. It is not a call to division, but a defense of dignity—an affirmation of the role of Mamprugu as the original and senior custodial kingdom of the Gbewaa legacy.

1. Succession After Naa Gbewaa: Tohugu Became King, Not Shitobu

Historical accounts across the Mole-Dagbamba world agree that Tohugu, the direct son of Naa Gbewaa, succeeded him as king after Zirli’s short reign in Pusiga during the 11th to 12^th century. Tohugu became the ruler of the unified kingdom established by Gbewaa, known today as Mamprugu. His brothers, especially Shitobu, remained prince and never assumed kingship during his lifetimes.

Importantly, Shitobu died as a prince, and no historical record or oral tradition confirms that he founded any kingdom or took royal regalia of Naa Gbewaa. In fact, Tohugu’s lineage continued the succession line of Naa Gbewaa’s original kingdom.

2. Chronology Disproves Shitobu’s Founding of Dagbon (Yooba)

The Yooba/Dagbon kingdom was not founded until the mid-14th century, with Naa Nyagsi recognised as its first king. This is confirmed by present day Dagbon Lungsi that Naa Nyagsi is the first Yaa Naa. This exposes a chronological contradiction in the claim that Shitobu founded Dagbon. Another point for readers to reflect on is that; Shitobu and Tohugu lived in the 11th–12th century, while Naa Nyagsi lived in the 14^th century. It is therefore, chronologically impossible for Naa Nyagsi to have been Shitobu’s direct son.

More accurately, Nyagsi was a grandson of Shitobu, who only traced his royal bloodline to him, but did not directly inherit kingship from him. Thus, it was Shitobu’s bloodline, not Shitobu himself, that founded the Yooba kingdom.

3. Formation of Yooba: Not by Conflict but Migration

Contrary to false narratives of a violent succession or regalia conflict at Pusiga, there was no chieftaincy conflict between Tohugu and Shitobu. Yes, Shitobu attempted challenging Tohugu’s succession, but he failed in his false claim. Both lived under the same kingdom under Tohugu’s kingship, where Tohugu had already established royal authority at Pusiga before relocating the traditional capital to Gambaga. The formation of the Yooba kingdom was not a product of war but of migration driven by farming and expansion of the kingdom.

As populations expanded and Shitobu still being bitter for his failed attempt, he eventually, moved southwards from Gambaga to a village near Diare called Yani-Dabari. Those who remained in Gambaga referred to Shitobu and his followers as “Yoodima or Yooba” (those who went to Yoo/forest), while the indigenous people who Shitobu and his people met began to call them Dagbamba—the people from Gambaga or Mole-Dagbamba.

Over time, the Yoo kingdom adapted the name Dagbon hence the present day Dagbon kingdom. Mamprusi, Dagomba and Nanumba are all Dagbamba people.

4. Gundo Naa Misrepresented
The claim that Gundo Naa Kachaɣu was the eldest child and inherited leadership is not substantiated. The title Gundo Naa was not present during Gbewaa’s era and was institutionalised later in Dagbon’s history.

5. False Attribution of Children and Villages

The association of certain towns—such as Karaga, Salaga, Zoggu, and others—as founded by "children" of the legendary patriarch Naa Gbewaa is a historical inaccuracy. While these towns hold significant cultural and political importance today, there is no credible historical or oral evidence to support the claim that they were founded by Naa Gbewaa’s direct offspring. They are at best, founded by princes of Yaa Naa and not the legendary Naa Gbewaa.

Scholarly and traditional accounts consistently identify only a few children or descendants of Gbewaa who went on to establish notable kingdoms. These include Tohugu, who inherited the Naa Gbewaa’s kingdom now known as the Mamprugu; Nyagsi (descendant of Naa Gbewaa), who is linked to the foundation of Dagbon; Gmantambo (son of Naa Gbewaa), the ancestor of Nanung; and Yanitora (also known as Yennenga, daughter of Naa Gbewaa), the legendary mother of the Mossi people of Burkina Faso. These individuals are firmly rooted in the historical and oral traditions of their respective regions and are acknowledged as key figures in the dispersion and political organisation of the Mole-Dagbamba group.

In contrast, places like Karaga and Zoggu emerged much later in the historical timeline, often developing as skins for princes, administrative towns, or settlements influenced by the expansion and interactions of existing kingdoms. Their retrospective linkage to Gbewaa’s lineage appears to be a product of ancestry and not his biological offsprings. This misattribution risks distorting the understanding of the genealogical and migratory narratives of the Mole-Dagbamba and related groups.

To maintain historical integrity, it is crucial to distinguish between the core descendants of Naa Gbewaa—whose roles in founding major polities are well-documented—and other towns whose prominence arose through different historical processes.

6. Succession System is Primogeniture, Not Competition

Contrary to the article’s claim, succession within the kingdoms of Mamprugu and Dagbon does not occur randomly or solely through spiritual divination. Rather, it follows a well-established system rooted in cognatic primogeniture, where the eldest eligible male—typically a son or closest male relative—has the primary right to inherit leadership positions. This traditional system ensures continuity, stability, and clarity in the transition of authority.

While spiritual consultations, family rivalries, or internal political dynamics may sometimes influence the choice or timing of succession, the underlying principle remains: the right of the eldest male child or relative, provided he is competent and not incapacitated. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Mamprugu, where the Nayiri’s succession line is highly regulated and has demonstrated historical consistency over centuries.

One of the strongest indicators of this succession logic is the role of the Regent. Upon the death of a chief, it is almost always the eldest son who becomes the regent—a position that symbolises both continuity and respect for primogeniture. This is not merely symbolic; it reflects deep-rooted customary laws that prioritize the eldest son's right to stand in for his father. Unless the eldest son is incapacitated, absent, or disqualified due to specific circumstances, no other child or relative assumes the role of regent unless it has been specifically arranged in accordance with tradition and with the approval of the kingmakers.

This system of succession, especially in Mamprugu, has proven to be one of the most stable and respected forms of chieftaincy inheritance in northern Ghana. It is not only a matter of tradition but also of legal and moral order—ensuring that the legacy of leadership is protected from manipulation, ambiguity, and discord.

Any historical reinterpretation that downplays this reality must therefore be treated with scrutiny, as it risks undermining the institutional memory and sacred customs that have held these ancient kingdoms together for generations.

7. Nayiri’s Authority and Historical Supremacy

Historically and symbolically, the Nayiri of Mamprugu is the eldest and custodian of Naa Gbewaa’s skins and authority.

The Mossi traces their ancestry to Gambaga in Mamprugu, not present-day Dagbon. This underscores the fact that the migration of Yanitora/Yennenga occurred from Mamprugu—not Dagbon—proving Mamprugu's centrality in Gbewaa's legacy.

The traditional symbols of Naa Gbewaa—regalia, royal authority, and ancestral rites—reside in Mamprugu. Dagbon adopted the lion as its emblem, while Mamprugu retained the elephant, symbolising ancient authority and continuity. All authentic traditions affirm that Tohugu inherited the full authority of Naa Gbewaa, not Shitobu or any other.

Notably:

1. No Nayiri has ever been enskinned by a Yaa Naa. The Nayiri has historically enskinned Yaa Naas, underscoring Mamprugu’s authority.
2. Even in modern Burkina Faso, the Mossi king is symbolically enskinned by the Nayiri, not the Yaa Naa. The Mossi traces their origins to Gambaga, not to present-day Dagbon—a fact that points directly to Mamprugu’s ancestral primacy.
3. Over seven Nayiri’s reigned in Mamprugu before Naa Nyagsi even became king of Yooba. This place Mamprugu’s skin in clear chronological and traditional seniority.

This confirms the Nayiri as the custodian of the Naa Gbewaa legacy, with the elephant as the

royal emblem, while Dagbon later adopted the lion. We all know who is the real leader or king of the forest, the elephant not the lion.

Conclusion
The Mamprusi, Dagomba, Nanumba, and Mossi are undeniably bound by blood, heritage, and a shared origin in the legendary figure of Naa Gbewaa. Our interconnectedness is not only a historical fact but a living testament to centuries of kinship, mutual respect, and cultural continuity. Yet, as we cherish this unity, it is imperative that it is grounded in historical truth and mutual recognition.

Unity cannot be forged through distortion. The deliberate reimagining of our shared past by self-serving individuals seeking prestige or dominance not only threatens harmony but dishonours the legacy of our ancestors. We must, therefore, collectively uphold the truth through the voices of our traditions, the strength of our oral histories, and the clarity of our collective memory.

Let us stand firm in safeguarding the dignity of each lineage within the Mole-Dagbamba group, knowing that true unity flourishes only where truth is respected and diversity is embraced. In doing so, we honour Naa Gbewaa and reaffirm the bonds that time and truth have held together for generations. Attempts to distort our past to elevate one kingdom over another only serve to undermine the shared dignity and ancient heritage we all inherit.

By a Concerned Descendant of Naa Gbewaa; Salifu Hamza Iddrisu