Elevate the Naa Gebwaa Tomb and Shrine in Pusiga to an international‑standard monument to support lasting peace in Bawku

The Bawku Conflict, with the Mamprusi and the Kussasis as the warring parties which is a clash between History and Identity, has been protracted by successive Administrations, since Ghana’s Independence with political interference in an ancient Chieftaincy matter in Bawku, with the balance of power shifting depending on which of the two warring parties or ethnic groups aligns with the ruling Regime. Thus the politicization of the Chieftaincy issue has sustained the Bawku Conflict over the donkey's years.

Consequently, the Bawku conflict has now assumed a complex, multifaceted matter where historical grievances, identity interlaced with partisan politics in the Chieftaincy power struggles and making the Bawku conflict as a resolution challenge.

So, notwithstanding the good mediation efforts of His Royal Majesty the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu 11, current developments give an indication that the Nayeri is yet to totally agree with matters in the Mediation Report as submitted to the President of Ghana.

This situation has made this author and some school of thoughts with the view that Ghana must be fast in identifying Peacebulding tools that promote Community inclusivity for effective reconciliation and Development in order to generate shared benefits that will motivate a lasting peace.

So, this author recommends to President of Ghana, to lift the Tomb and Shrine of Naa Gebwaa in Pusiga to a Standard of international Monument to afford a Peacebulding tool for lasting Peace in Bawku. This is very important, since Naa Gbewaa is the Foundational figure linking the Kussasis and the Mampurisi.

It must also be noted that History recognizes Naa Gbewaa as the foundational ancestor of one of the warring party to the dispute in Bawku, as the Mampurisis people of Mamprugu Kingdom, who together with the people of the Dagomba Kingdom, the Nanumba Kingdom and the Moshie Kingdom in Burkina Faso, are termed as the Mole-Dagbane people but appeared to be disunited. Hence need to unite them to lobby with their senior brother, as the Mampurisis to allow for peace to prevail at their ancestral canton.

So, lifting the Tomb and Shrine of Naa Gebwaa to a Standard of international Monument would motivate key members of the Mole-Dagbane people to form a vibrant Council or Brotherhood to lobby with their senior brothers, as the Mampurisis people who are a party in the Bawku conflict with the Kussasis people to allow peace to prevail. Since Kussasis and the Mole-Dagbane people share or are related to the rich history by Naa Gbewaa, as the Foundational Figure linking the Kussasis and the Mole-Dagbane people, hence a potential shared benefits to be enjoyed by all of them.

History tells that Naa Gbewaa from the Northern Nigeria, settled in Bawku, in the late 14th Century or so. Through Naa Gebwaa, Chieftaincy was introduced in some parts of the North especially Bawku and in Ouagadougou in Burkina Faso in the precolonial era. Thus confirms, Naa Gbewaa in History as the Foundational figure linking the Mampurisis and the Kussasis.

He died in a mystical way in Pusiga, about 17 km from present day Bawku and was buried in Pusiga.

Thus, the protracted Bawku Crisis could be described as symptoms of ancestral displeasure due to the failure of the Kussasis and Mampurisis and their brothers in the Mole-Dagbane Community to collectively acknowledge that Naa Gbewaa as their foundational figure, linking all of them as one Community of Naa Gbewaa.

As such, his associates need to allow a total Peace in Bawku to let the World to acknowledge Naa Gbewaa and his descendants for the good work of introduction of local governance and military system that governed and protected Bawku and fought against the activities of notorious slave traders namely Samori and Babatu in the precolonial era through the introduction of a Chieftaincy institution with centralized command and control system in Bawku and other areas in the Northern part of Ghana.

This is to say that Naa Gbewaa as the foundational figure linking the Kussasis and the Mampurisis in the conflict, who died in Pusiga, happened to be the ancestral root of the Mamprusi people and their brothers in the Mole-Dagbane Group. So there is the need for his linkages to ensure lasting peace in Bawku for the Nation to acknowledge the importance of his tomb and shrine at Pusiga at National level and to some extent at the Global Level due to the relationship of the Moshie Kingdom in Burkina Faso and some elements in Togo to the Mampurisis Kingdom.

Thus, a key Peace Building tool, is for the Government and the affected Traditional Leaders, to see to raising Naa Gbewaa’s tomb and Shrine in Pusiga into International Monument to serve as a powerful symbol of restored Unity, Respect for Tradition and a place of visits by both national the International Tourists.

This is the reason this writer, after critical thinking on the associated debacle, is with the very strong conviction that highlighting a shared heritage through raising the Tomb and Shrine of Naa Gbewaa into International monument with the support of UNESCO and the World Bank and ensure inclusivity of all the affected Communities for shared benefits, could serves as Peacebulding Tool for reconciliation and development to ensure lasting peace. This Author, has come to this logical conclusion based on the below Historical perspectives.

It must be noted Chieftaincy Institution in the precolonial days, was created by a domineering person or a family with Executive, Judicial and Legislative Powers and thus acted as the authority over a Community Group, overseeing governance, mediating disputes and maintaining cultural practices. So the contributors to the establishment must not be relegated to background.

It is for this situation that made the Chieftaincy Institution in Ghana to be rooted in dynastic orders or royal lineages or Gates and customs or cultures (traditions), thus Chieftaincy Institution defined the History of a Canton and its people in the precolonial era, colonial era and post-Independence in Modern Ghana era.

Naa Gbewaa, was/is the fulcrum of the Chieftaincy Institution in the Northern Province, initially at Pusiga/Bawku and upon his death that, his eldest son by Northern Custom, inherited him and created a Mampurisi supremacy in Bawku with him as the first Nayeri of the first Mamprugu Kingdom reportedly at Pusiga where he had his Headquarters or Palace. Due to the expansion of the Mamprugu Kingdom, the first Nayeri moved his Headquarters or Palace to Gambaga, whilst a younger brother, namely Ziril was left behind to be incharge of Pusiga.

The younger siblings of the Nayeri of Mamprugu Kingdom, founded the Dagbon Kingdom with Headquarters or Palace at Yendi also by the 14^th Century. The youngest brother of the first Nayeri founded the Nanum or Nanumba Kingdom, with Headquarters or Palace at Bimbilla. Princess Yennenga, the sister of the first Nayeri of the Mamprugu Kingdom, travelled beyond Navrongo and founded the Ouagadougou Kingdom and named it after his son Ougadrago which now as the Moshie Kingdom, with the Headquarters or Palace in Ouagadougou, the Capital City of Burkina Faso.

Due to the location of the Nayeri’s Palace at Gambaga, the British Colonial Masters also set up a local District Administrative unit in Gambaga to be collocated to that of the Nayeri of the Mamprugu Kingdom. Google for the Kussasis, a short History by JG Syme published in 1932. Also Google for Tribes of the Ashanti hinterland by Captain RS Rattray published in 1932. The Ashanti hinterland in Captain Rattray’s book almost implied to the whole of the Northern Territories.

So, Some Scholars of History indicated that the Mamprugu Kingdom which compasses among others like the Ouagadougou or Moshie Kingdom as founded by the sister of the first Nayeri and the Bawku Chiefdom were appendages of the Mamprugu Kingdom as established before the 16^th Century, so reportedly as the oldest Kingdom in Ghana.

Note, the Ashanti Kingdom was established effective 1701, hence in the 18^th Century by King Osei Tutu 1, with the extension of Ashanti Kingdom’s sphere of influence across a number of Regions was done in precolonial era, during the colonial era which persisted in the post-Independence in Modern Ghana era.

History tells that in the precolonial era, various ethnic groups lived in separate cantons in Bawku including five Mampurisi villages developed in Bawku, about 20 km away from Pusiga, as Military Posts to defend Bawku. The other tribes lived in their various villages or communities including Kussasis villages, numbering more than 10, others include the Bimoba Villages, Bissasi Villages, Nabdam villages, Kassena Villages, Hausa villages without canton chiefs, as acephalous societies that is without centralized control system with elders and Court.

So History tells that the Mampurisis established Chiefdoms of centralized command and control system with hierarchical order of elders and Court system and made the various ethnic villages to nominate their own canton chiefs, who were enskined by directly by Nayeri before the arrival of the British Rule. Google for Tribes of the Ashanti hinterland the Northern Territories) by Captain RS Rattray published in 1932. Also Google for the Kussasis a short History by JG Syme published in 1932.

By historical accounts by the Kussasis, the 1Oth Nayeri, namely Nayeri Naa Zontua Atabia, who ruled the Mamprugu Kingdom with Headquarters in Gambaga from 1688 to 1742 was very supportive in affording them protection against the Bissasi people, who nearly overran their positions. But with the help of the Princes of Mampurisis origin in Bawku, including Ali Atabia, a son of Nayeri Naa Atabia, the Mampurisi helped the Kussasis to defeat the Bissasi in a War.

The Mampurisi succeeded in the war by the establishment of five Villages in Bawku as Military posts and afforded protection for Bawku in the precolonial and colonial days. Google for the Kussasis a short History by JG Syme published in 1932. Also Google for Tribes of the Ashanti hinterland the Northern Territories) by Captain RS Rattray published in 1932.

After the war, Bawku was fully integrated with the Mamprugu kingdom in 1721, by Naa Atabia, the 10^th Nayeri of the Mamprugu Kingdom with Headquarters at Gambaga. Google for the names of the Nayeri of Mamprugu. It was after the war that Naa Atabia enskined his son as Bawkunaba namely as Naa Ali Atabia. Hence, a Mamprusi as the Rep of the Nayeri in Bawku as Bawkunaba was by Naa Atabia. So Naba Ali Atabia of Bawku earned the title of the First Bawkunaba, as the Paramount Chief over all the canton Chiefs in Bawku, with the Nayeri as the Overlord of the Mamprugu Kingdom. Google for the names of the Bawkunabas of Mampurisi origin and Google for the names of the Bawkunabas of Kussasis origin and contrast the two list for an informed mind.

According to the legends of Northern Ghana, a great Fanti man, as an agent of the Colonial Administration, namely George Ekem Ferguson, a cartographer, was the one who in the 189Os helped in the process for the integration of the Northern Province into the Hegemony of the British Colonial Masters.

Some Scholars indicated that before the Colonial Masters came to the North by 1902 and with the Northern Territories Administration Ordinance of 1902 which officially declared the areas as a British Protectorate that it was based on the good work of George Ekem Ferguson, who recognized the Hegemony or the Authority of the Nayeri or the Mampurisi over other Opinion leaders. Ferguson when in the North, found a Mampurisis as Bawkunaba, through the power granted by the Nayeri of the Mamprugu Kingdom.

So, George Ekem Ferguson worked closely, with the support of the Leadership of the Mampurisi in Bawku with one of them as Bawkunaba as well with the then Nayeri of the Mamprugu Kingdom, who provided over all governance and military protection of the affected Northern areas against some then notorious Slave Traders namely Samori and Babatu. Incidentally George Ekem Ferguson was killed in the North by Samori and Babatu, the then notorious slave traders during his trip to Wa.

So the British brought the Northern Territory under Indirect Rule by 1932, before that, ruling was with the support of the Nayeri. So the British collocated an Administrative District Headquarters with that of the Palace of the Nayeri at Gambaga.

This situation made the authors of history books after research work by seasoned researchers as anthropologists and or ethnologists hence competent authorities in history before 1933 to conclude that Bawku, as essentially within the Hegemony of the Nayeri or the Mampurisis in the precolonial era or by 1933,

It was based on the good work of anthropologists and or ethnologists made the British Colonial Masters to codify the chieftaincy Institution in the Northen Territories of the Gold Coast in an Ordinance in 1932 known as the Native Authority Ordinance. This Ordinance, among others, legally empowered the colonial regime to create new chiefs in areas in the then Upper Region now made of Upper East and Upper West and the Volta Region where centralized authority systems did not traditionally exist at all termed as acephalous societies. This Google for the Kussasis a short History by JG Syme published in 1932. Also Google for Tribes of the Ashanti hinterland by Captain RS Rattray published in 1932. The British did same in Nigeria with the Native Ordinance of 1916. Codification of Chieftaincy in the Ashanti Kingdom was also done by the British as part of the British colonial Policy of Indirect Rule.

Contrary to the perception by some Ghanaians of wrong doing by the British in the policy of Indirect Rule, it must be noted the British never imposed a chief over any canton in the North or Volta Region, it was just a matter of recognition of the state of affairs. So it was done in an orderly manner based on the good Work of seasoned and very honest Researchers as anthropologists and ethnologists.

This assertion is according to the original diary of JG Syme reference as ADM 56/1/198 and NRG8.2.214 National Archives in Tamale and Accra. So, the codification of chieftaincy in Bawku was done in a very professional using mediation principles as and when where necessary to avoid dispute in cantons under his jurisdiction, as the Assistant District Commissioner or Administrator in 1931, with his initially at Headquarters at Gambaga.

JG Syme did so with the support of Captain Rattray and other anthropologists and or ethnologists. They conducted deep researches into the chieftaincy Institution in Bawku. It was after their Research work that they organized several mediation conferences as stakeholders’ engagements before December 1932 to confirm the state of affairs. This culminated in the details in their books written in 1932.

The first conference was held in March 1931 with the Chiefs of Kussasis cantons, subsequent ones with other tribal chiefs of other cantons. A Conference was also held with the Mampurisis people. The Conferences with the Chiefs of the Kussasis cantons etc ended cordially with the various Chiefs at the Conference nominating the then Senior Kussasis Chief by name, Naba Ayebo as their Spoke person or leader, for a final Conference with the Nayeri and the Mampurisis.

At the combed Conference, that was a joint one of the Kussasis and Mampurisis held in December 1932, with the key tribal actors doing the talking for a concession to be reached and not a unilateral imposition of the opinion or recommendation of a Mediator.

The last conference, in December 1932, saw the very excitement of the British Team, led by Mr JG Syme, the then Assistant District Commissioner or Administrator, when the Kussasis through Naba Ayebo, who was the Seniormost Kussasis’s canton Chief and the other tribal chiefs declared their total allegiance to the Nayeri of the Mamprugu Kingdom, and officially accepted the Nayeri of the Mamprugu Kingdom as the Authority for nominating a Prince of the Mampurisis in Bawku, as the Bawkunaba. Look for the handwritten diary of JG Syme as singed by him at the National Archives in Accra or Tamale. Otherwise Google for ‘synopsis of Diary JG Syme’.

So, at the last conference, the Kussasis ended with a request that the Mampurisis Prince in Bawku as enskined as Bawkunaba by the Nayeri, should be the one to be responsible for the enskinning of the Canton Chiefs or sub chiefs in Bawku in order to reduce the burden of travelling to Gambaga to be enskined by the Nayeri at his Palace which entailed the presenting of gifts to the Nayeri as well.

So, Kussasis actually kicked against going to a Gambaga for the blessing of the Nayeri and wanted the final enskinment of canton Chiefs in Bawku to be done by the Bawkunaba, as a Mampurisis, hence a Rep of the Nayeri. Since besides the trips’ fatigue, it entailed a double agony of presenting harvest gifts and other gifts to the Bawkunaba, a Mampurisi as enskined by the Nayeri and same to be done to the Nayeri at Gambaga.

The then Nayeri was not happy with this request of not getting his cola nuts directly from the canton Chiefs in Bawku. This Greediness on the part of the then Nayeri was the beginning of the issue of disagreement or the start of the Bawku Conflict.

The disagreement matter aggravated when the youth of Kussasis were not getting enough Scholarships from the Mamprugu Kingdom, from the Mampurisis District Council. The late Alhaji Mumuni Bawumia, was then the Nayeri’s Personnel Secretary from 1951 to 1956, later as the State Secretary of the Mampurisis Native Authority, and was appointed as Clerk of the Mampurisis District Council a position now designated as District Chief Executive of now District Assembly in the 1992 Constitution. Google for ‘A life in the Political History; Memoirs of the late Alhaji Mumuni Bawumia’.

In 1954, through the instance of the Nayeri of the Mamprugu Kingdom, some other notable chiefs in the Northern Area including Chief SD Dombo, Chief Abayefa Karbo, Chief BK Adama etc, met at the Palace of Nayeri of the Mamprugu Kingdom and formed Northern Peoples Party (NPP) initially or sometime those days termed as the Nayeri’s People Party (NPP).

Due to their persisted grievances, the Kussasis especially their Youth wing formed alliances with the CPP and competed with the NPP for the Legislative Elections in 1954, 1956 etc against the Northern Peoples Party (NPP) and this made the CCP to win Seats especially in Bawku.

The bad blood situation in Bawku became a full blown dispute when a new Bawkunaba in the person of Mampurisis Prince Yerimiah Mahama who happened to be a sympathizer of the NPP and the brother-in-law of Alhaji Mumuni Bawumia (his first wife was the Sister of Prince Yerimiah Mahama who was enskined as the 13^th Bawkunaba in June 1957 by Nayeri by name Naa Bongu Adam Badismsuguru. This was so, as the result of the death of the 12^th Bawkunaba in 1956 by name Naa Awuni Bugre.

The Kussasis during a CPP rally, in June1957 nominated Mr Aburago Azoka, as a rival Bawkunaba with the Naba Aburago Azoka 1. Since then the situation was compounded with the disputing or affected tribes building association with the ruling Military and Civilian Regimes after the CCP Regime of President Nkrumah.

So with the installation of a rival Bawkunaba in June 1957 by the Kussasis, using one of them as such, worsened the confusion, this caused the then Government to establish a Commission of Inquiry, under the Chairmanship of one Mr Opoku Afari to look into chieftaincy matter.

Members of the Commission of Inquiry, included the then Dormaahene, namely Nana Yaw Agyeman Badu 1 and the then Tumu Koro namely Luri Kanton 111. The terms of Reference included whether the Kussasis should be encouraged to have their own Chiefs or if the existing system of enskinment by the Nayeri, the Mampurisi Overload should continue. Google and read ‘who were the members of the Commission of Inquiry in 1957 into the Bawku Chieftaincy affair’.

The Afari Commission recommended that the Kussasis should be encouraged to have their own Chiefs thus recognizing Azoka as Bawkunaba. The Nayeri through Naa Yerimiah Mahama, the then Bawkunaba of Mampurisi tribe, as enskined by the Nayeri, felt members of the commission as sympathizers of the CCP, hence, they colluded against the new Bawkunaba, namely Naa Yerimiah Mahama and the Nayeri, who were sympathizers of the Northern People Party (NPP) which opposed to the CCP in partisan politics.

Naa Yerimiah Mahama and the Nayeri caused the issuance of a writ at a Divisional or a High Court in Kumasi to quash the report of the Committee, which the Court did quash it. Hence, ruled in favour of the Mampurisi.

On 21 October 1958, the Government of the CCP on behalf of the Kussasis or Azoka side, appealed against the ruling of the Kumasi High Court, so the Appeal Court, then as Supreme Court as well, with Chief Justice Korsah as the presiding Justice, overturned the ruling of the High Court. Some scholars claimed it was so because Naa Yerimiah was exiled by Prime Minister Nkrumah, so he was not able to mount no defence. This paved the way for Naba Aburago Azoka 1 to occupy the Seat.

The matter lingered on and due to the conduct of some chiefs, the then President Dr namely Nkrumah caused the enactment of the Chieftaincy Act 1961, for the integration of Chiefs into the National Structure which gave him power to remove Chiefs opposed to his Party etc and install his favorites. So some 500 Chiefs not aligned to the CCP, including the then Wenchihene were sacked and the then Government installed replacements. The famous mantra Chiefs will ran away and leave their sandals as said by Nkrumah, is referred.

As part of the reasons which motivated the overthrow of the CCP in 1966 in a Coup by the NLC, the NLC looked into the destoolment of over 500 Chiefs including the Wenchihene or Wenchi Chief by the Regime of President Nkrumah. Findings of the NLC resulted in the enactment of a Chieftaincy Amendment Decree 1967 (NLC Decree 112) and reversed the destoolment of the affected Chiefs by the Regime of President Nkrumah. Naa Yerimiah Mahama who died in exile was posthumously restored as Bawkunaba.

So, with the death of Naa Yerimiah Mahama, so the situation saw the Nayeri enskinning Naa Adam Zangbeo, a Mamprusi as the 14^th Bawkunaba who reigned between 1967 and 1981. He died in 1981, so due to his death, his son Alhaji Ibrahim Adam Zangbeo, acted as a caretaker or as Regent (Gbang-daana).

Report indicated that Naba Aburago Azoka 1 considered himself as a rival Bawkunaba up to 1983, and was declared in 1983 as a Commoner, on the grounds that he was not of a royal lineage. This ruling was by the National House Chiefs, acting as a High Court, lawfully regarded as the Court of first. He died shortly after this declaration in 1983.

So, Chieftaincy in Ghana became interlaced with partisan politics and military dictatorship culminating in the Junta of the PNDC with the enactment of PNDC Law 75 as the Restoration Chiefs PNDC Law 1984 which saw the restoration of Naba Aburago Azoka 1, who died in 1983, posthumously as Bawkunaba. This paved way for his son to be made the Bawkunaba with the name Naba Aburago Azoka 11. He was duly gazetted.

So, Aburago Asigri Azoka 11 is the legitimate Bawkunaba with the coming into enforce of the 1992 Constitution with Article 270 to 277 on Chieftaincy and the subsequent legislation of the chieftaincy Act 2008, as Supreme law and subsidiary legislation or an Act of Parliament on the Chieftaincy Institution in the Fourth Republic respectively.

So, the protracted Bawku Crisis could also be described as a clash of history and identity. So, history can help provide the solution to the Bawku Crisis under the Fourth Republic of Ghana which is anchored by the 1992 Constitution which affords protection of all Chieftaincy or Chiefs as gazetted effective the date. So, the 1992 Constitution as the Supreme Law of Ghana, its provisions and associated legislation must be enforced by the Government of the Day. So Naba Aburago Azoka 11 as gazetted, thus recognized by the 1992 Constitution remains at the Bawkunaba until the Constitution of Ghana says otherwise.

Hence, any bold and honest person, with a critical mindset, would come to the logical conclusion that both regimes of President Nana Addo and Dear President John Dramani Mahama erred by asking the Asantehene to mediate on a Constitutional and political question on the Bawku Conflict, Since, such a critical thinker would come to the logical conclusion that in the Mediation effort by the Asantehene, he had no other option than to submit a report that is aligned with or guided by the 1992 Constitution.

So as a very astute King, with wisdoms type King Solomon, His Royal Majesty, the Asantehene Otumfuo Nana Osei Tutu 11 (hmm named after the founder of the Ashanti Kingdom) did a very good job when he recommended that the Nayeri of the Mamprugu Kingdom, as part of a win-win solution, should be encouraged to cure the problem with Alhaji Seidu Abagre, as the rival Bawkunaba by either assigning him to a new role in his Palace otherwise if Alhaji Seidu Abagre elected to stay in Bawku, then he must there as a private Citizen. Thus 1992 Constitution, Naba Aburago Azoka 11 as Bawkunaba must be affirmed.

It must be noted the situation in Bawku is not like the situation in Yendi Chieftaincy, with two brothers then competing as Regents of the two potential Gates, as occupant for vacant Yendi Seat, so through a mediation using the good office of Manhyia, a concession or compromise of wait patiently for your turn was reached by the two brothers especially when one of them was highly respected.

In the Bawku Situation, there is no option of a Waga or a Regent to wait patiently for his turn in the, especially with a sitting a Bawkunaba or Paramount Chief of Bawku who was duly recognized by the Chieftaincy Restoration Law 1984 (PNDC Law 75), and subsequently recognized by the 1992 Constitution, thus the Supreme Law. This made Alhaji Seidu Abagre as Bawkunanba as enskined by the Nayeri in 2023 based on History (old tradition and custom of dynastic orders), to be incorrect hence illegitimate.

So the way forward is for Ghana to come out with good solution to ensure lasting peace based on the very good work of the Asantehene, for the President of Ghana to use a good Peace Building tool for reconciliation and development.

5o, Ghana needs to factor that in the history of Bawkunabas, the most prominent Kusasi Chiefs in the history of Ghana are the late Naba Aburago Azoka 1, appointed in the regime of President Nkrumah in 1957 and the current Bawkunaba namely Naba Asigri Aburago Azoka 11, the son of the late Naba Aburago Azoka 1, who ascended to the throne in April 1984. Thus, the Mampurisi dynasty ruled over Bawku over 230 years with 14^th Bawkunabas, whilst the Kusasi had two Bawkunabas and this for about 44 years. This situation makes Naa Gbewaa, foundational figure linking the two disputing Parties as the solution for lasting peace.

From the above details, the Spirit or personality of Naa Gbewaa regarded as a fulcrum, the foundational figure, linking the warring parties and other major groups, is Ghana’s solution, notwithstanding the warring parties’ specific claims and narratives about settlement and Chieftaincy in Bawku or their related historical perspectives. Evoking the spirit or personality of Naa Gbewaa in National and spheres global should be a Peace Building for reconciliation and development.

Since, both Parties to the dispute have a shared history, so the tomb and shrine of Naa Gbewaa should be developed by Ghana through the President into an International Monument for shared benefits to the parties based on all relevant Communities inclusivity for the reconciliation and development process to ensure lasting peace.

It must be noted that the Kussasis people do acknowledge that Naa Gebwaa or his descendant as the foundational chief and thus accord Naa Gebwaa with great respect. So, the Kusasi people also claim lineage or historical connection to Naa Gebwaa, hence both Parties must have connection to the Gbewaa Tomb and Shrine in Pusiga.

This makes the Tomb and Shrine of Naa Gbewaa is in Pusiga as historical evidence of their relationship. Thus the tomb and Shrine of Naa Gbewaa have spiritual and ancestral importance to the Kussasis, Mampurisis, Dagomba, Nanumba and Moshie people. So, Naa Gebwaa’s shrine in Pusiga is a major culture and historical landmarks for the Kussasis clan, as well for the Mampurisis and their associated brothers.

So, elevating the Tomb and Shrine of Naa Gbewaa to the Standard of International monument with the support of UNESCO and the World Bank would halt the fight in order to encourage visitors especially tourists to Pusiga and Bawku, since the income from the Internationals Monument, should be shared in a manner with the Mampurisi through Nayeri, say receiving 20%, the Kusasi through the Bawkunaba 15%, the related Youth Organizations 5% each, Site’s maintenance 25%, Return to investments 30%. Reasonable share of available employment at the Site should be given to persons from the warring Parties as Reps of their Kings.

For the effectiveness of the Project, as stated Ghana should seek the support from UNESCO, the World Bank, and other International Communities and Corporate Ghana. I am sure support may be obtained from the Head of State of Burkina Faso, who and some of his people belong to the Moshie clan. Hence they are associate with the Mampususi and so he and his people share the same historical links with Bawku. Note the Moshie Kingdom was founded the sister of the first Nayeri or a daughter of Naa Gbewaa.

Benefits of a Global Monuments status
By promoting a shared heritage through raising the tomb and shrine into an International Monument Site, it would emphasis the shared ancestry and history of the conflicting groups of the Kussasis and Mampurisi, by a measure of fostering a sense of common identity and unity.

It will be a very good Symbol of Value, since elevating the status into an International monument Site would provide a powerful neutral symbol of unity that transcends the current dispute just like other monuments are employed to promote peace and national identity.

It will provide Economic incentive, as a global Tourists destination thus could bring great economic benefits to the entire region thus provides shared incentive for Peace and Stability. So, Ghana should explore the idea of sharing part of the revenue with the Mampurisi through Nayeri, receiving 20%, the Kusasi through the Bawkunaba 15%, the related Youth Organizations 5% each, and Maintenance of the Site 25%, and Return to investments 30%. Reasonable share of available employment at the Site should also be given to persons from the warring Parties as Reps of their Kings, hence making it through their Kings would motivate the Leaders and the youth to ensure lasting peace to attract a lot of tourists.

By giving International Recognition to the tomb and shrine, it will attract International Attention to the region due to the expected cultural richness, the location, thus putting pressure on all parties especially the Bawkunaba and Nayeri to get their people to accept peace building efforts to protect shared global heritage site.

It will serve as a place for global Educational Program due to the rich history of the area. The Mole-Dagbane especially the Moshies have a huge population of over 11 Million people, thus it may serve as tours for explaining Naa Gebwa prowess and impact on chieftaincy and governance and that of His Royal Majesty, the Asantehene, the mediator, for his excellent mediation prowess made available to Ghana for the settlement of disputes associated with the Mole-Dagbane people, especially the Yendi Stool crisis and now the Bawku crisis which is linked to the Mampurisis people as well election disputes. .

It would thus become an Excellent Center for Peace Initiative by linking the Site for International Peace building Seminars, Cultural Exchanges and Inter-traditional Dialogues by exploring the legacies of Naa Gebewa and the Asantehene for stable rule.

Ghana should also consider the Peacebulding efforts of joint ceremonies, football matches, the use of the Bawku Inter-Ethnic Peace Committee as established by the National Peace Council in 2009 with membership of 23 of the various ethnic groups with engagement with chiefs, opinion leaders and the people for continuous homegrown solutions.

   Comments0