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

Your opening paragraph clearly demonstrates not intellectual rigor, but a lack of appreciation for the discipline of historical analysis. You accused me of beating your “intellectual understanding of historiography,” yet it is your own shallow construction that collapses under scrutiny. History is not made credible by the mere citation of texts, but by fidelity to its original custodians. Among the Gbewaa states, the Lungsi stand as the living archives of our past—keepers of memory whose testimonies

predate and inform all written records. To dismiss them is to reject the very foundation of our history. You claim that I referenced no historians. I do not need to. My authority rests on the timeless testimonies of the Lungsi, through whom history has been faithfully transmitted across centuries. I do not rely on concocted narratives from self-seeking, egocentric writers who twist truth to serve personal or political ends. As our elders say, “the one who abandons his father's words to follow the gossip of the marketplace has already lost his way.” I stand with the fathers of our history, not with the noise of distorters.

Ideally, I should have ignored your shallow claims. For long, many have said, “let it go, they are our brothers.” But those days are over. Silence in the face of deliberate distortion is no longer an option. The legacy of Naa Gbewaa is too sacred to be sacrificed on the altar of ego or convenience. You may seek to reframe history, but you cannot erase the truth inscribed in the drums, chants, and memories of our people.

Now, I shall proceed to expose your feeble and narrow attempt to “correct” inaccuracies in my article. In your desperation, you have contradicted yourself and entangled both your hands and feet in your own shallow narrations. But I will be charitable with you in my rebuttal—so do not be alarmed. After all, you are my kid brother, and I will do this in a brotherly way by referring to Shitobu as Naa Shitobu. Happy? Yeah I know you are. Good!!!

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

Introduction
History, whether written or spoken, must always be grounded in truth and fidelity to its original sources. Oral tradition, the earliest and most authentic form of recording the past, stands as the foundation upon which all written history rests. Among the Gbewaa states, this oral heritage has been carefully preserved and transmitted through our revered Lungsi, the time-honoured custodians of memory and knowledge. It is from them that every historian—foreign or indigenous—has drawn their narratives. On what basis, then, should anyone question my reliance on this source?

The current debate on the origins and seniority within the Gbewaa fraternity did not arise in isolation. It was provoked by certain kinsmen who, in their bid to elevate ego over truth, have peddled false narrations about supremacy within Naa Gbewaa's lineage. To challenge such distortions is not an attempt to dismantle history, but rather to preserve it in its purity. As our elders say, “when a child twists the rope of history, the old woman will untwist it with patience.” This is not a generation of Mamprugu youth that will stand idle while history is massaged for convenience.

First, you claimed that I failed to tell my readers why Naa Tohugu and his people moved the capital from Pusiga to Gambaga, and that — for the supposed sake of unity among the Gbewaa states — you refused to disclose “oral accounts about these disturbing historical events.” I challenge that assertion. I know exactly why the relocation occurred, and I am prepared to confront anyone on this matter any day and at any time.

Moreover, since when did oral accounts gain their legitimacy as historical sources for you? You accused me of failing to reference scholarly positions in my previous write-up, yet I repeatedly cited oral tradition. This selective amnesia is telling. In my view, to dismiss oral testimony while appealing selectively to written sources is inconsistent and undermines the integrity of historical inquiry.

On the name “Yooba” and the identity of the Dagombas.

You argue that the original identity of the people of Gambaga was not Mamprusi before Naa Bangmarigu and his followers arrived, rightly asserting they were later called Mamprugudima, from which “Mamprugu” and “Mamprusi” evolved. Yet you failed to state clearly what this “original identity” was. If they were not Mamprusi, then who exactly were they? Dagbambas right? If so, how then could ''Naa Shitobu'' and his followers not be referred to as Dagbambas but rather be said to have “met Dagbambas” in their new settlement at Yani-Dabari? Your own contradictions defeat your position. It is established, both in oral history and in your own words that the term Yooba refers to the present-day Dagombas. This is no invention—it is an undeniable fact preserved by the Lungsi. You admitted that “Naa Shitobu metaphorically became first King of the Forest—that is, Yogutoli-lana.” But what is Yogutoli-lana?. And what then is Yooba if not a reference to the people of this forest realm?

Even more telling is your own admission that, “among Dagbon drummers (Lungsi), there is a term called Salaa Gmemanga to refer to how ''Naa Shitobu'' gradually inadvertently formed Yogu which was later to be Dagbon.” This quote is telling, and exposes your false narration. What does Yogu mean in Dagbani dialect? You can run, but you can never run away from your own shadow. To naively say Yooba is unknown among you and in Ghana, clearly demonstrates your uninformed nature, and questions your background as historian. At best you are among those engage in “His- story” instead of history.

Thus, the attempt to dispute or trivialise the origin of the name Yooba only exposes the cracks in your narration. The evidence is clear, consistent, and preserved by the Lungsi—the custodians of our history. As the elders say, “truth may walk slowly, but it never loses its way.”

Shitobu Succeeding Zirili
But worse still, is your attempt to elevate Shitobu as successor of Zirili. You wrote that “Naa Shitobu was the first King after the separation of Naa Tohugu at Gambaga.” Yet how could Naa Tohugu, who remained at Gambaga, have “separated from Gambaga”? This is not interpretation—it is contradiction. I guess you may say because he moved from Gambaga to Mamprugu in Togo, meant separating from his younger siblings. Well, respected scholarship has consistently confirmed that Naa Tohugu succeeded Naa Gbewaa's throne after Zirili's short reign and subsequently relocated the capital from Pusiga to Gambaga. Schlottner (2000), affirms this clearly when he writes:

“… Tohugu, the oldest surviving descendant, never founded a new state but moved the capital from Pusiga … , and finally, the capital of the nayiri was transferred westwards to Gambaga” (Schlottner, 2000). Similar position is espoused by Lentz and Nugent (2000), that Tohugu inherited the Gbewaa skins and relocated to Gambaga.

At no point does Schlottner suggest that Shitobu relocated the capital to Gambaga. Therefore, it is difficult to comprehend how you could arrive at the rather astonishing and unfounded claim that:

“some oral and written historians are therefore of the opinion that if Naa Shitobu had remained in Gambaga and his son Naa Nyagse had expanded the territories to today's Dagbon and Shitobu died and was buried in Gambaga with his son, Naa Nyagse succeeding him from that capital, Gambaga would possibly have been part of the expanded territory.” These newly crafted false narratives will not stand, because we know our history and will not allow his-story to be passed off as history. The contradictions and shifting claims from people like you regarding your own past are, quite frankly, laughable. Even your own modern-day Lungsi acknowledge Naa Nyagse as the founder of present-day Dagbon.

Therefore, your conjecture collapses under the weight of established historical evidence. Shitobu never succeeded the skins of Naa Gbewaa, nor did he rule from Gambaga. He was simply a prince under the reign of Naa Tohugu, during whose era the capital shift occurred. It was only after this period that Shitobu moved southward with some followers—nothing more. Further details on this will be provided soon.

Moreover, other eminent scholars—including Fage (1969) and Goody (1972)—corroborate what oral tradition has always affirmed: Shitobu never succeeded Zirili or Naa Gbewaa. The origins of legitimate kingship among the Gbewaa states trace directly and unequivocally to Naa Gbewaa, the revered founder of Mamprugu and the fountainhead of all the Gbewaa states. It was the descendants of Naa Gbewaa who later established the kingdoms of Dagbon, Nanun, and Mossi, but none can dispute that Mamprugu is the cradle from which all sprang. As our elders say, “a stranger may build a hut, but the compound belongs to the landlord.” Mamprugu is the landlord; all others branched from it.

On the claim that Naa Nyagse was the son of Naa Shitobu

Your own testimony exposes and undermines you . You admitted that Naa Shibei, Shitobu's brother, became Kuga-Na, and that every Naa addresses him as “Yaba”—grandfather. If Nyagse were indeed Shitobu's son, Shibei would have been his uncle, not grandfather. Why then should Nyagse call him grandfather?

This is no slip of language. In the original Dagbamba kinship system, titles are precise and deliberate. A son does not call his uncle “grandfather.” The only logical explanation is that Nyagse was Shitobu's grandson. To deny this is to force the rope of genealogy into knots that tradition itself does not allow. This issue is part of the many issues our people wished they remained undisclosed or discussed, so let's leave it here. We are brothers as a people, but in terms of the chieftaincy, do more research on that. Leave out self-seeking interest and desperate attempt to rewrite our history, speak to well meaning Dagbon lungsi and learn more about our chieftaincy.

Succession from Naa Gbewaa's Era and the Authority of the Kingmakers

You stated that Naa Gbewaa preferred Kufogu over Zirili. But this only proves how shallow your reasoning is. A father may have favourites, but in royal succession, personal preference does not override tradition. What mattered was the authority of the elders—the legitimate kingmakers.

That is why, after Zirili's death, the elders drafted Tohugu, the eldest surviving son, to succeed, even though Shitobu and others were alive at Pusiga. If Shitobu had the stronger claim, why bypass him? Why call Tohugu from Nabari, where he was on a hunting expedition? The answers are clear: legitimacy and primogeniture.

As our elders remind us, “When the elders sit, the child may have eyes but he does not see the far horizon.” The elders saw further, and their choice of Tohugu over Shitobu affirms the cognatic primogeniture principle. Your attempt to reduce this to favouritism collapses under its own weight.

It is therefore mind-blowing for you to quote Prof. Illiasu (1970) as saying:

“…… Tohugu's flight took him first to Gambaga in the southeastern part of the kingdom and then eastwards to Mamprugu. Sitobu and his followers pursued him only to Gambaga and after a brief stay there, they proceeded westwards to Nabare and then southwards to Yendi Dabari.”

This claim reflects, in my view, a limited appreciation of both history and geography. The facts are straightforward: Mamprugu, the maternal home of Tohugu located in present-day Togo, lies much closer to Pusiga than Gambaga does. Gambaga is approximately 68 km from Pusiga, while Mamprugu in Togo lies only about 25 km away from Pusiga.

Logically, where would an individual seeking refuge or support flee to — the location 68 km away, or the one barely 25 km away? Why would Tohugu bypass the nearer and more accessible Mamprugu only to travel first to Gambaga and then return eastwards? The narrative simply does not withstand geographical and logical scrutiny.

Be that as it may, let us return to the matter of succession after Naa Gbewaa. If, according to that narrative, Gambaga lies in the southeastern part of Naa Gbewaa's kingdom and Nabare is westwards, then a simple question arises: today, under whose authority do these areas fall— the descendants of Tohugu or the descendants of Shitobu? Who then inherited Naa Gbewaa's kingdom?

Nayiri Enskining Ya Naa
Similarly, in your attempt to address the issue of whether the Nayiri ever enskinned a Ya Naa, you naively claimed that the Nayiri did not select the eldest prince among the Yani princes as Ya Naa. This assertion exposes a lack of logical reasoning.

My position has always been clear: unless under special circumstances, the eldest son is the rightful and legitimate successor to his father according to our established customs and traditions. In this particular case, however, it was a special circumstance—Dagbon was in disarray. While I will omit the details of the events that followed, it is important to note that the Nayiri's choice ultimately proved decisive, as Naa Zanjina became the most outstanding ruler of Dagbon in modern history.

Most importantly, your own words weakens of your claims. You argued that “the oral account of Naa Gbewaa's children is liturgically chanted” and listed names like Karaga (Biemoni), Sunson (Bugyaligu), Gundo-Naa (Kachagu), Kuga-Naa (Shibei Kpema), and Salaga-Naa (Kayal-kuna). Yet these are traditions peculiar to Dagbon alone, not the broader Gbewaa fraternity. That should caution you against presenting fragments as the whole.

To argue that Mamprusi's identity as a “new construction,” should be my focus to reconstructing it, is not only petty but also a reflection of shallow thinking. Mamprugu has carried her evolving identity with dignity—from Naa Banmarigu's relocation from Mamprugu to Gambaga, and later Naa Atabiya's move to Nalerigu.

If Dagbon evolved from Yooba to Dagbamba, that is their historical path. The name “Dagbamba” refers to Naa Gbewaa and his people as they migrated from Zanfara near Lake Chad, through northern Nigeria from a place called Gombe. The Hausas referred to them as Dan Gombe, meaning “people of Gombe,” following their common practice of adding “Dan” to a place name (e.g., Dan Kanu, Dan Sokoto, Dan Gombe). Over time, “Dan Gombe” corrupted into “Dagbamba.” Which became our identity over time.

Similarly, after Tohugu's demise in Mamprugu, Naa Banmarigu relocated his people back to Gambaga. Those who followed him from Mamprugu came to be known as Mamprusi, a name that, through the passage of time, solidified into our current identity.

Mamprugu, however, has remained steadfast in preserving its original identity. To brand the Mamprusi as separatists is akin to trying to cover the sun with your palm—futile, misleading, and ultimately short-lived.

Conclusion
We are all children of Gbewaa, bound by blood, history, and culture. As our elders teach, “a rope of many strands cannot be broken.” We must strengthen the bonds that unite us, not twist history to divide us. You may write Dagbon's history as you know it, but do not distort our history. For “he who lies about his kin digs a pit into which his children will fall.” Let us, then, put an end to these distortions. Enough of the fabrications. Let us respect our distinct yet interconnected identities, preserve the sanctity of our shared heritage, and forge ahead as one Gbewaa people—in truth, in dignity, and in peace. I agree with you on the score of;

May Allah unite the Gbewaa brothers!
May Allah Unite and Prosper Mamprugu!
May Allah Unite and Prosper Dagbon
May Allah Unite and Prosper Nanun.
May Allah Unite and Prosper Ghana.

Aameen to that.

''Liberate your mind from the shackles of self-deception- our elders say, the man who ties himself cannot blame others for his bondage.'' Go learn more.

By: Salifu Hamza Iddrisu

   Comments0