Settlement Timelines in Bawku: A Framework for Resolving the Mamprusi-Kusasi Conflict

Introduction
The protracted Mamprusi–Kusasi armed conflict in the Bawku Traditional Area is fundamentally a contest over chieftaincy, persisting since Ghana’s independence. At the heart of this struggle lies an essential question: Which of the two ethnic groups first settled in Bawku, thereby owning the land and holding the legitimate right to the paramount skin (chieftaincy) of the traditional area? This article explores both the Mamprusi and the Kusasi timelines of settlement, drawing from oral histories, colonial records, and recent Kusasi scholarship.

One principle underpins this dispute: “One cannot become a chief without proof of owning land” (Abass-Abaah, The Kusaas: An Indigenous Perspective, 2024, p. 8). This reflects both the Kusasi and Mamprusi worldview; a shared understanding that the Bawku skin rests on indigeneity—belonging to the original inhabitants of the land with reference to the history and effects of settler colonialism.

Therefore, resolving the over six-decade conflict demands a careful and impartial examination of the competing historical narratives and settlement timelines of both groups to determine who truly are the indigenous people of the Bawku land and in the entire Bawku traditional area.

The Bawku Traditional Area
Understanding what constitutes or how the Bawku traditional area is defined requires attention to its geographical configuration and the colonial administrative definitions that shaped it in the early twentieth century.

In The Kusasis: A Short History (1932), Syme explained that: the territory is bisected by two major rivers: The Red Volta, which demarcates the western boundary, and the White Volta, which marks the eastern boundary. The Red Volta area (also referred to as Toende) with Zebilla as its principal town is where “the real Kusasis are in greatest numbers”, while the White Volta (also known as Agolle) with Bawku as the capital is where the Mamprusi are in the majority. (p. ii).

In colonial usage, all settlements east of the White Volta (Bawku area) and those west of the Red Volta (Zebilla area), together constitute what is known as the Bawku Traditional Area.

T.E. Hilton, in his work: Ghana Population Atlas: The Distribution and Density of Population in the Gold Cost and Togoland under United Kingdom Trusteeship (1959), observed that “Bawku is North Mamprusi (district) only real town. Its chief is of Mamprusi descent, but in the town itself Kusasis are in the minority” implying that, Bawku is where Mamprusi legitimacy or dominance is significant. Hilton also records that in 1921 what was then known as “Togoland Kusasi was little known and the percentage increase registered in 1931 was almost certainly an exaggeration.” (pp. 26, 25). In his Notes on the History of the Kusasi (1962), he wrote: In 1935-36 its list of 662 taxable males included only 20 Kusasis and 114 Mamprusis. 60 per cent were Moshi and Hausa.” (p. 85-86).

Togoland Kusasi:
For historical context, Togoland was a German colony from 1844 until 1916 when it was divided into two between the French and British following the fall of Germany with the eastern part under French Togoland (present-day Republic of Togo) and the western part (present-day Volta, Oti, and parts of Northern, North-East, and Upper East Regions) under British Togoland—which was later integrated into modern-day Ghana after a 1956 plebiscite. Thus, British Togoland was initially not part of the Northen Territories, though it bordered them in the north. It was a separate mandate territory under British administration before its integration into the Gold Coast (Ghana). Togoland Kusasi, therefore, most probably refers to a portion of Togoland where a section of Kusasi migrants from Burkina Faso settled known as the mandated territory (comprising notably Gagbiri, Bugri, Tempane, Worikambo, and Pusiga) prior to the defeat of the Germans at the end of World War I.

In writing about the Kusasi migration, Abass-Abaah explained that what accounted for the Kusasi to move from “Burkina Faso to the Northen Territories (Ghana), later becoming part of the British Protectorate” was because of the “tyranny of the French and its resented policy of assimilation.” (p. 14). The French conquered the Mossi and established colonial control of Burkina Faso from 1895–1919 and annexed eastern Togoland in 1916. Togoland Kusasi in the west became part of British Togoland. It may not be factually accurate, therefore, that Kusasi migrated to the mandated territory to escape French despotism and policy assimilation because by their own timeline, they had left Burkina Faso to Ghana by 1885, a decade before French colonize Burkina Faso.

Election of Bawku Naba as Tribal Head:

The unification of the chiefs in the two spheres (the Bawku and Zebilla areas) into a single political unit (traditional area) occurred in 1931. All the chiefs in the two areas were placed under one head through an election among themselves and the chief of Bawku (Bawku Naba), a Mamprusi, won.

Syme, the Acting District Commissioner at the time, recorded in his short history of the Kusasis that: “it was not difficult to make the Chiefs and people realize the advantages to be obtained if they united under a Tribal Chief, and this culminated last year in the unanimous election of the Chief of Bawku to the position. So, he was confirmed in the office by the Na of Mamprusi and raised to the status of Divisional Chief.” (p. 29–30).

It must be emphasized that this historical arrangement in 1931 explains why the present chieftaincy dispute is centered on the Bawku skin since 1957 (and not the Zebilla skin). The entire Traditional Area was vested in the Bawku chieftaincy. The chief of Bawku therefore became the focal symbol of suzerainty and traditional power, and naturally the object of political and ethnic contestation. Thus, contesting the Bawku skin is not merely about authority in Bawku town itself, but about the legitimacy of the Chief over the whole traditional area.

On June 7, 1957, a day after the Nayiri (King of Mamprugu) enthroned Yirimia Mahama as 13th Bawku Naba (chief), “Kusaa chiefs met at a secret location and elected Azoka Abugrago as their new Bawku Naba” (Abass-Abaah, p. 44) on the claim that Bawku is Kusasi land and the Mamprusi are settlers. This marked the first major break in the otherwise continuous Mamprusi line since the 1700s.

Kusasi Narrative and Timeline:
Oral traditions of the Kusasi, published in The Kusaas: An Indigenous Perspective, say they are the indigenous people in the Bawku Traditional Area, suggesting that their ancestors had already settled in places like Boya, Gumbo, and Yirigu before Mamprusi rule began in the early 1700s. The Kusasi claim emphasizes that they are Tindaans, which connotes landowner and earth-priest —arguing that it is a leadership structure of the Kusasi people “where authority over the land rests with the Tindaan, and not with the Naba (chief).” (Abass-Abaah, 2024, p. 7).

In presenting the reconstruction of the Kusasi formative years based on four years of research and consultations with indigenous knowledge holders, Abass-Abaah (Kusasi from Sapalugu village), traced their roots through a long migratory journey starting from the ancient Sudanese Empire, through present-day Burkina Faso, and eventually into Ghana. He provides three major settlement timelines:

1. By 1870 the Kusaas had migrated to Zabré in Burkina Faso before moving further to new settlements—Zor, Zodeuk, Yuiga, and Bieung.
2. “By 1885, the Toende Kusaas entered Widinaba, while the Agole Kusaas went eastward to settle in Zawse, Zabugu, Missiga, Garu and Bawku areas” all in present-day Ghana.
3. By 1890, independent Kusaug towns in the Bawku traditional area had been established.
4. That “according to oral sources from Toende, when the Kusaas arrived, they met pockets of Bissa craftsmen and blacksmiths in some areas” (pp. 16, 17, 22).

Sawadogo Alain, Kusasi scholar (PhD Candidate at Joseph Ki-Zerbo University, Burkina Faso) presented a paper at a conference held by Institute of Social Sciences, Burkina Faso in 2023 titled: The Socio-Political Institutions of Precolonial Kusaateng (Burkina Faso/Ghana) where he posited that: “the Pusigdem are the first settlers before Na Gbewa’s deed at Pusiga in the 15th century.”

In essence, Alain’s version argues that the Kusasi were in the Bawku area as far back as the 1400s, and the Mamprusi are cast latecomers in the eighteenth century. This statement is not just contrary to Abass-Abaah’s version of Kusasi migratory timelines, but also chronologically untenable.

Mamprusi Narrative and Timeline:
While Kusasi narratives emphasize the spiritual authority of the Tindaan as their leader, Mamprusi history places emphasis on the leadership authority of the Chief tied to first settlement. They connect their presence in Bawku to the wider expansion of Mamprugu’s influence from the 17th century onward, particularly through the Trans-Saharan trade. Abass-Abaah noted that Bawku at the time was a “thriving commercial post between the western Sudanese empires and the south, particularly, Mamprusi and Ashanti” (p. 5).

The Mamprusi claim they are the original inhabitants of both the Bawku and Zebilla areas, because according to oral history supported by their settlement timeline and colonial records, the first chief of Bawku was a Mamprusi, Ali Atabia, enskinned by the Nayiri of Mamprugu in 1721.

Beside the Kusasi arrival in Burkina Faso by 1870 before moving to Ghana, that act of enskinment (enthronement) of Mamprusi chief established a continuous chieftaincy institution in Bawku over a century before the final arrival of the Kusasi by 1885.

Mamprusi established permanent settlements and chieftaincy in Sinnebaga, Binduri, and Bawku by 1730.

By 1895 Bawku already had its 7th Mamprusi chief (Mamboda Mahama: 1844–1895)—a period of Kusasi migration from Burkina Faso, and the beginning of French colonization of that country.

Mamprusi chieftaincy and rule continued unbroken over two hundred years until 1958.

T.E. Hilton, in Notes on The History of Kusasi (1962), observed that until the 1920s a few Kusasis from Biengu (in Burkina Faso) spread over into the Sinnebaga area from Zongoiri (p. 81).

R.S. Rattray, in his anthropological work titled Tribes of the Ashanti Hinterland, Vol. II (1932), recounted his interview with a Kusasi elder from Gagbiri who claimed that when the Mamprusi came from Gambaga they met the Kusasi. However, Rattray conclusively noted: “Bawku are really Mamprusi, not Kusasi, being founded by the ruling class” (p. 374).

In the introduction of his short history of the Kusasis, Syme also recognized that the name of the town (Bawku) is “a corruption of the Mamprusi word Boku.”

The Mamprusi established settlements, order, leadership, and identity. Since there is no record of a Mamprusi conquest over Kusasi before chieftaincy began, their ownership of the land was likely essential to becoming chiefs.

Obvious Problem in the Kusasi Narratives:

First, it is significant to note that in his Forward to The Kusaas: An Indigenous Perspective Prof. Amadu D. Ayebo, recognized the eight individual contributors of the book as “outstanding group of authors from Kusaug who are well-qualified to tell the Kusasi narrative.” Therefore, Alain’s academic repositioning of Na Gbewaa in the fifteenth century contrary to the timelines and what is narrated in the published Kusasi perspective does not only conflict with the acknowledged narrative in book, but also reveals the inconsistencies that suggest chronology may be manipulated to weaken Mamprusi continuity and indigeneity, and to manufacture Kusasi precedence. However, once the accepted sequence is restored—Na Gbewaa at Pusiga before the 15th century, Pusigdem are descendants of Na Gbewaa, Mamprusi in the Bawku traditional area before Kusasi migration—the Kusasis’ own version of their history collapses under its own contradictions.

Oral traditions and comparative sources consistently affirm that Na Gbewaa is the ancestor of the Mamprusi, Dagomba, and Nanumba, and his death at Pusiga occurred before the fifteenth century contrary to Alain’s claim. Na Gbewaa’s grandson Ouedraogo founded the Mossi kingdoms in the fifteenth century. The “Pusigdem” he referred to as first settlers before Na Gbewaa are descendants of Na Gbewaa. In his Notes On The History of the Kusasi Hilton noted: “the children of Gbewa’s son Zirli remained behind at Pusiga” and Tohugu (founder of modern-day Mamprugu kingdom) is “Gbewa's rightful heir.” He observed that though “the precise chronology of the Kusasi migration is of course unknown, from this one may suspect that the coming of the Kusasis was after the time of Gbewa” (p. 81).

A central weakness in the Kusasi narratives is chronology; the contradiction is evident. It is worthy of note that in the published history of the Kusasi people (The Kusaas: An Indigenous Perspective), described as authentic self-told narrative by the authors, the Kusasi migration into Ghana probably from 1870 to 1890 is asserted thus, placing their settlement more than four centuries after the era of Na Gbewaa in Pusiga according to Alain’s version. Yet the same narratives claim precedence as first settlers over Mamprusi chiefs whose genealogies stretch directly to Na Gbewaa.

According Hilton, based on analysis of works of early authors, Tauxier in his Nouvelles Notes sur le Mossi et le Gourounsit concluded that the reign of the first Paramount Chief of the Mossi people began at 1233. Meyerowitz also places the foundation of the Mamprusi dynasty at about the second half of the 13th century. On the assumption that these timelines are correct, it is most probable that Na Gbewa was in Pusiga between the 12th and 13th centuries (Hilton, 1962, p. 81).

Conclusion:
It is crucial and necessary to examine side by side the timelines provided by the two ethnic groups to understand and resolve the issue of indigeneity (original inhabitants of the land). In other words, Kusasi or Mamprusi?

Permanent Mamprusi settlement (Sinnebaga, Binduri, and Bawku) and chieftaincy from the early 1700s; seven successive Mamprusi chiefs ruling before 1890. Kusasi migration into Burkina Faso c.1870; entry into Ghana c.1885; establishment of independent Kusasi towns only by 1890.

Thus, from the analysis of what both groups’ timelines reveal when compared—even if Kusasi tradition stretches their first arrival a century back to 1785 (and not 1885), the Mamprusi at that time had already settled and been ruling for about seven decades. If using the more consistent Kusasi timeline (1870–1890), the Mamprusi presence predates Kusasi by at least 150 years.

One conclusion thus emerges unambiguously: The Mamprusi account of original or first settlement proves consistent, authentic, supported by independent authors, reliable, and historically prior. This conclusion, however, does not deny the Kusasis’ subsequent rootedness in both the Bawku and Zebilla areas. It simply clarifies the historical sequence of settlement, and acknowledging these layered histories provides an honest foundation for resolving the Bawku chieftaincy conflict and for peace and reconciliation—recognizing the Mamprusis as original settlers and chiefs, and the Kusasis as later settlers who developed a strong land-based identity under the Tindaanship. Hence, while the evidence points to one consistent conclusion, it also acknowledges these dual legacies may yet form the basis for peaceful coexistence on the crucial principle that indeed: “one cannot become a chief without proof of owning land.” Together, they may provide the honest foundation for mediation.

References

• Abass-Abaah, J.A. The Kusaas: An Indigenous Perspective. Accra: Digibooks Ghana Ltd., 2024.
• Ayebo, Amadu D. Foreword to The Kusaas: An Indigenous Perspective. Accra: Digibooks Ghana Ltd., 2024.
• Hilton, T.E. Ghana Population Atlas: The Distribution and Density of Population in the Gold Cost and Togoland under United Kingdom Trusteeship. Accra: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1959.
• Hilton, T.E. “Notes on the History of Kusasi.” Transactions of the Historical Society of Ghana, 1962.
• Rattray, R.S. The Tribes of the Ashanti Hinterland, Vol. II. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932.
• Syme, J.K.G. The Kusasis: A Short History. Accra: Government Printer, 1932.
• Sawadogo, Alain. “The Socio-Political Institutions of Precolonial Kusaateng (Burkina Faso/Ghana).” Paper presented at Institute of Social Sciences Conference, Ouagadougou, 2023.