Mamprugu’s Paramountcy and the Bunkpurugu Skin: Sovereignty, Succession, and the Imperative of Unity

Abstract
This article examines the relationship between Mamprugu’s paramount authority and the Bunkpurugu skin through the lenses of archival documentation, genealogical continuity, customary land tenure principles, and recent adjudication by the National House of Chiefs. It argues that the enskinning authority over Bunkpurugu remains vested in the Nayiri of Mamprugu and that the ruling of 24th February 2026 concerns succession within the skin rather than sovereignty over the traditional area. By distinguishing between enskinning authority and internal royal eligibility, and by clarifying the customary distinction between usufructuary settlement rights and allodial (radical) title, this article contends that Mamprugu’s paramountcy over Bunkpurugu is historically continuous and juridically intact. At the same time, it affirms that the ultimate purpose of sovereign authority is not domination, but peace, unity, and the preservation of collective dignity.

Introduction: History as Structure, Not Sentiment

History, when properly interpreted, is not merely a chronicle of past events; it is a structured map of authority. In the matter of Bunkpurugu and its relationship with Mamprugu, archival records, genealogical lineage, and customary jurisprudence converge toward one coherent conclusion: the enskinning authority over the Bunkpurugu skin resides in the Nayiri of Mamprugu.

Yet clarity requires discipline. To avoid confusion, one must carefully distinguish between two fundamentally different questions: succession within a skin and sovereignty over a traditional area. When these are conflated, emotion displaces structure, and misunderstanding replaces jurisprudential clarity. It is therefore necessary to examine Mamprugu’s political architecture before assessing the implications of the recent ruling.

Mamprugu as a Paramount Polity

The Mamprugu Kingdom stands the oldest centralized traditional states in Ghana. Headed by the Nayiri, it has historically functioned not as a loose confederation of autonomous units, but as a hierarchical polity anchored in paramount authority. The Nayiri is not a ceremonial figurehead; he is the fountain of enskinning authority within Mamprugu’s territorial jurisdiction.

This structure is reinforced by genealogy. Among the formative rulers of Mamprugu was Naa Atabia, whose reign consolidated both territory and royal lineage. Several lineages, including those linked to Pibri of Binde area, trace descent from him. In northern customary governance, genealogy is not ornamental—it is the bloodstream of legitimacy. Authority flows through recognized royal lines under a paramount skin.

Thus, Mamprugu’s architecture has always been hierarchical: divisional skins operate within the sovereignty of the Nayiri; they do not exist parallel to, or independent of, it. Having established this structural principle, it becomes necessary to examine documentary confirmation of this relationship in the specific case of Bunkpurugu.

Archival Confirmation: The 1931 Memorandum

If oral tradition forms one pillar of legitimacy, archival documentation forms another. A cited memorandum dated 19th July 1931, issued under the Mamprusi Native Authority in Walewale, provides documentary confirmation of Mamprugu’s jurisdiction over Bunkpurugu.

Titled “Memorandum of Agreement Signed by Parimak Jajing and Yoagbat Toojak,” the document resolved a chieftaincy disturbance concerning Bonkporok (Bunkpurugu) by the 28^th Nayiri, Naa Soro Abdulai Sulemana. It:

1. Recognized Jamong Toojak as first settler.
2. Affirmed that land allocation occurred under Mamprugu authority by Pib-Rana, a son of the Nayiri.
3. Confirmed that royal lineage and skin rights belonged to the Jamong family.
4. Installed Yoagbat Toojak as chief.
5. Bore the signatures and thumbprints of disputing parties under Mamprugu Native Authority oversight.

The implications are unmistakable. The dispute was not settled by an autonomous Bunkpurugu sovereignty nor by an external kingdom. It was adjudicated within Mamprugu’s recognized administrative framework. In customary systems, the authority to determine royal legitimacy presupposes sovereign jurisdiction. As of 1931, therefore, Bunkpurugu and Bimoba areas were clearly operating within Mamprugu’s political and customary order.

The Archival evidence is reinforced by historical intervention. Naa Soro, the 28th Nayiri, settled disputes concerning royal legitimacy between Bimoba families in Bunkpurugu. The power to enskin implies superior title. The power to determine lineage legitimacy implies recognized sovereignty. Across northern Ghana’s customary systems, divisional authorities may manage internal succession, but ultimate validation rests with the paramount skin. Thus, the intervention of Naa Soro represents not episodic involvement, but the exercise of entrenched sovereign authority.

This brings us naturally to the land question, which is often misunderstood in contemporary debate.

Land Allocation and Radical Title

Historical accounts indicate that the Pib-Rana granted land to the Bimoba for settlement under Mamprugu authority. However, under northern customary land tenure systems, settlement rights do not equate to allodial ownership (absolute ownership).

Rather, such allocation confers:
Usufructuary rights of occupation and use.

Local administrative stewardship.

Derived authority subject to superior recognition.

It does not transfer radical (allodial) title from the overlord skin.

In customary jurisprudence, radical title—territorial and political—remains vested in the paramount authority, in this case the Nayiri. Settlement creates community; sovereignty sustains structure. This distinction is not semantic but foundational. A divisional skin may exercise internal succession and administrative authority within its jurisdiction, yet its legitimacy continues to derive from the paramount source of recognition.

With this structural clarity in place, the implications of the recent ruling become easier to assess.

The 24th February 2026 Ruling: Clarifying Scope

The ruling of 24th February 2026 by the National House of Chiefs addressed the Bunkpurugu chieftaincy dispute. However, its determination concerns succession within the skin, not sovereignty over the traditional area.

It clarified which royal gate is eligible to occupy the Bunkpurugu skin based on earlier settlement by Naa Soro, 28^th King of Mamprugu. It did not extinguish, diminish, or redefine the Nayiri’s enskinning authority. Determining who occupies a skin does not nullify the superior customary authority under which that skin exists.

On the Question of Nomination and Customary Procedure

A Facebook post or statement attributed to the “Bimoba Traditional Council” correctly affirmed that the Nayiri’s authority to enskin the Bunkpurugu chief remains intact. However, the assertion that the Jamong family will nominate a candidate for enskinment must be situated within established Mamprugu custom.

Traditionally, all qualified candidates from the rightful gate assemble at Nalerigu at the Nayiri’s palace for screening and enskinment in accordance with Mamprugu custom. Should the Nayiri, in his wisdom, permit a single nominee to be presented, such discretion lies solely with him as the fountain of authority. No external body or entity may prescribe procedure to the Nayiri. The distinction is subtle but crucial: discretion belongs to the overlord; prescription does not.

Equally important to note is that, geographically and historically, the eastern corridor—from Nakpanduri through Bunkpurugu—has long formed part of Mamprugu’s traditional jurisdiction. The 1931 memorandum, the intervention of Naa Soro, genealogical descent of Pib-Rana from Naa Atabia, and consistent administrative oversight collectively establish a pattern of continuity.

Authority in the Service of Peace

Yet even as the historical and customary evidence affirms Mamprugu’s paramountcy, authority must be exercised with wisdom. Sovereignty exists not for domination but for order, stability, and unity. In my considered view, the enduring strength of Mamprugu lies not merely in archival proof or genealogical precedence, but in its capacity to hold its people together.

As our elders wisely cautions, “A branch may stretch outward, but it cannot deny the trunk from which it grows.” Bunkpurugu’s internal debates over succession should therefore be resolved within Mamprugu’s established structure—calmly, lawfully, and fraternally. Paramountcy should not be a source of tension, but a framework for harmony.

Conclusion

The 1931 memorandum demonstrates recognized jurisdiction.

The intervention of Naa Soro evidences overlordship.

Customary land principles confirm retention of radical title.

Genealogical continuity situates Bunkpurugu within Mamprugu’s royal architecture.

The 24th February 2026 ruling addresses succession—not sovereignty.

Clarity therefore demands separation of structure from sentiment. Enskinning authority remains vested in the Nayiri. Internal eligibility within the royal gate concerns lineage qualification. These are distinct matters.

Nevertheless, in the final analysis, kingdoms endure not merely because they are strong, but because they are just. Justice, exercised with patience and inclusion, sustains peace. And peace, in turn, preserves the dignity and unity of Mamprugu.