modernghana logo

FEATURED STORY Why Christian Clergymen Sin In Officiating Marriages For Non-Virgins!!...

body-container-line
13 November 2017 | Opinion/Feature

Re: Bimbilla Chieftaincy Conflict: The Issues, The Facts And The Fictions

Danaa Nantogmah
Re: Bimbilla Chieftaincy Conflict: The Issues, The Facts And The Fictions

Introduction
Trending within the social media landscape is a featured article by Danaa Nantogmah in his attempt to shed light on the Bimbilla chieftaincy crisis. In this article, Danaa dilated upon a wide range of issues, which in his view are the facts and fictions about Nanung (Bimbilla) chieftaincy issues. A significant portion of the article was devoted to malign and tarnish the reputation of the Bangyili Royal Gate, especially with a deliberate distortion of the facts of history about Naa Dahamani lineage, while it struggled unsuccessfully to salvage the fast sinking image and diminishing influence of the Kpatihi family in the scheme of affairs in Nanung Chieftaincy with the powers and authority they, in fact, do not have. It is against this background that the Bangyili Royal Gate wish to put into perspective some of the inconsistencies, fabrications, inaccuracies, and contradictions in that verbose and incoherent assessment of Nanung Chieftaincy issues by Danaa.

Any objective minded scholar worth that accolade will classify Danaa as an amateur who doesn't even appreciate the import of what he writes, and not the University Lecturer that he calls himself. This is because the copious reproduction of a fraudulently secured court verdict to justify the unorthodox claim to the Bimbilla paramountcy, and to over hype the actual role of the Kpatihi family in Nanung chieftaincy, as claimed in Dana's article is indeed laughable. It is the more reason why the Bimbilla chieftaincy matter is still pending in the highest court of the land while Danaa is quick to falsely accuse people like Dr. Chambas of influencing the 1993 Nakpa Verdict by the Northern Regional House of Chiefs in favor of Naa Salifu DAWUNI.

Danaa conveniently forgets that the 2012 Bimbilla Verdict by the Northern Regional House of Chiefs, upon which his analysis and conclusion is based, was secured through political patronage, corruption and vast conspiratorial subterfuge perpetrated on the people of Nanung by erroneously associating the name of Mr. Andani Dassana with the Andani Royal Gate in Dagbon to court political support that influenced the ruling in favor of Mr. Andani Dassana. It is regrettable to say that some of our brothers in Dagbon, because the name of one of the contenders for Bimbilla Naa is Andani Dassana, have mistakenly linked the Andani and Abudu chieftaincy divide to that of Nanung. This is completely misplaced, because the chieftaincy issue in Nanung is unique and different in its entirety, it is an intra-gate issue among the Gbumayili royals.

While Danaa and his cohorts feel that putting the matter before the highest court of the land could reveal the truth and jeopardize their claims, the Bangyili Royal Gate is confident that the precedence in Nanung customs and traditions, if presented as evidence in a court of law, will vindicate itself and preserve it customs and traditions.

The Rulings by the Northern Regional House of Chiefs

The Regional Houses of Chiefs are quasi-judicial bodies, having the status of high courts. Matters of chieftaincy are normally referred to them because it is believed that they have adequate information on the specific customary practices relating to each traditional area within their jurisdiction, and by this will be guided in the adjudication of cases filed before it, instead of relying so much on the technicalities and procedural issues that are normally associated with our mainstream courts.

It is regrettable to say this, but important for the readers and the general public to know that in my candid assessment and examination of the customs, traditions and history of Nanung, the Northern Regional House of Chiefs erred in its 2012 ruling that ostensibly elevated the role of the Kpatihi Naa as a sub-chief in matters of enskinment of chiefs over the authority of the Bimbilla Naa as the paramount chief and the Juo Naa as the chairman of the kingmakers in Nanung. Can you imagine any of the paramount chiefs – the Naa Yiri from Gmanpurigu, the Yegbonwura from Gonjaland and the Yaa Naa from Dagbon, will readily empower any of their sub-chiefs in such a manner as to suggest that they have much powers than their overlords in matters of appointment and selection of sub-and-divisional chiefs?

This is because by giving this skewed ruling, it means that anytime any kpatihi Naa or any person designated to perform such role or customary rites, and refuses to comply with the authority and directives of the Bimbilla Naa as the paramount chief or the Juo Naa as the chairman of the kingmakers, and any other chief is delegated to do it, is null and void. Is this not absurd? Indeed, the 2012 verdict falsely glorified the power of the Kpatihi Naa in the selection and enskinment of chiefs, including the selection of Bimbilla Naa, which is inconsistent with the custom and history of Nanung, because it wrongly suggests that the Kpatihi Naa has power over their overlords (Bimbilla Nanima) when it comes to the selection and enskinment of chiefs. It also gives the false appearance of the truth and facts of Nanung custom and tradition, as it relates to the role of the Kpatihi Naa or the Kpatihi family. This is what Danaa and his cohorts has capitalized on to exaggerate their claims and the role of the Kpatihi family in Nanung Chieftaincy contrary to the established custom and tradition of Nanumbas.

Interestingly, the Regional House of Chiefs ruled in 1993 that great grandsons were not debarred from ascending the throne of Bimbilla Naa as far as known customs of Nanung is concerned, let alone Nakpa Naa, that same body could suddenly turn around and say in the 2012 ruling that great-grandsons were not qualified to ascend the throne of Bimbilla without setting aside their previous ruling. Isn’t the 2012 ruling an obvious fraud perpetrated on the good people of Nanung? They also erroneously declared that the brother of Kpatihi Naa Ponadow, Azindow was the acting regent of kpatihi Naa, who performed the enskinment customary rites on Mr. Andani Dassana, and therefore, legitimized his ascension to the throne of Bimbilla Naa. Incredulous, isn’t our Regional House of Chiefs supposed to know that in the Nanumba custom and tradition it is not brothers who are made regents, indeed, it is sons who are made regents?

It even becomes more confusing when the chairman of the panel who presided over the verdict in 1993 in favor of Naa Salifu DAWUNI against Kpatihi Naa Ponadow, was the same chairman who presided over the 2012 verdict in favor of Mr. Andani Dassana against Naa Salifu Dawuni. As to the position of the panel that the majority carries the vote in the 2012 corrupted ruling is most unfortunate, because it is not supported by precedence in Nanung history, it is not supported by logic and it is not supported entirely by law.

However, Danaa, who used the 2012 ruling by the Regional House Chiefs to justify his outrageous unsubstantiated claims, in which he claimed that the 1993 Nakpa ruling that was in favor of Bimbilla Naa Abarika Attah II and Nakpa Naa Salifu DAWUNI could not be traced. In addition, Mr. Danaa disclosure in his article that a panel member confided in Kpatihi Naa Ponadow that they presented a good case but lost because of an imaginary influence is contradictory and exposes Danaa as a pathological liar or a very confused person. Granted that this was true, though it is an interpolation, could that also suggest that Kpatihi Naa Ponadow attempted corrupting the process, and when he did not succeed, explanation had to be offered by the panel member?

Furthermore, it is difficult to appreciate how Danaa can discount the existence of that 1993 ruling, and yet has always claimed an appeal was filed at the National House of Chiefs. It is worthy to let the readers know that this appeal was struck out at the National House of Chiefs on arrival, and has not been appealed against any further. Interestingly, failure to secure an appeal to reverse or set aside the 1993 Nakpa verdict implies that, that verdict is still relevant in determining the outcome of the pending case at the Supreme Court, whether Danaa acknowledges its existence or not.

In law evidence is weighted, but not counted, and evidence if even adduced by a single person deserves credit. Our Regional House of Chiefs have questions to answer when the case that is pending at the Supreme Court is called. Questions to answer not in relation to their physical presence in the courts but when their judgment is put under scrutiny by the very learned judges of the Supreme Court.

The Kpatihi Family
Here is the truth about the Kpatihi family in Nanung, which Danaa should have known, because his continuous attempts to hype the importance of the Kpatihi family in Nanung Chieftaincy over and above the Juo Naa, and other kingmakers is not supported by facts of Nanung custom and history. Danaa should stop embarrassing himself with this cock and bull stories and listens to the truth. Kpatihi Naa Yidantogma's position at the Bimbilla Naa's palace was reintroduced through the magnanimity of our father, Bimbilla Naa Natogma Attah II, but today ingrates or ungrateful persons like Danaa and his cohorts are those crucifying and biting the fingers that fed them, and brought the Kpatihi family out of the shadows back to the limelight of Nanung custom and tradition after almost a century of being barred from the palace of the Bimbilla Naa by Naa Pienkpaa.

After the Kpatihi chieftaincy title was disbanded during the reign of Naa Pienkpaa following that pugnacious behavior exhibited by Kpatihi Naa Napari, similar to what the current crop of the Kpatihi family, which Danaa belongs to, are displaying in Nanung today. Indeed, after disbanding the Kpatihi title in the palace of the Bimbilla Naa, about 11 chiefs (Bimbilla Nanima) have come to the Bimbilla throne without the involvement of any Kpatihi Naa. So Mr. Danaa must stop lying that the Kpatihi is the sole chief that is entitled to enrobe or enskin chiefs, without whom any enrobement or enskinment is null and void as highlighted disgracefully by the contradictory and politically orchestrated by the 2012 ruling of the Northern Regional House of Chiefs.

As for the regalia in the possession of the Kpatihi family, it is with the family because Juo Naa entrusted it to the Kpatihi's family care when the integrity of your forebears could be vouched for. It does not belong to the Kpatihi family, and Danaa should get educated on these matters and stop deceiving himself and the general public.

Let Danaa and those who share his views be told that, the first major involvement of a Kpatihi Naa among the kingmakers of Nanung to select a paramount chief after almost a century of absence was during the installation of the late Naa Dassana. Naa Dassana was chosen over and above Bagbab Naa DAWUNI because like Danaa rightly stated, his skin title of Nakpa Naa was higher than Bakpaba Naa. His choice was not so much of the involvement of Kpatihi Naa Yidantogma on his side but rather the involvement of the Juo Naa, who undoubtedly is the chairman of the kingmakers, and who has always been part of the selection process of all Bimbilla Nanima since the coming into being of the Nanumba kingdom.

This is unlike the Kpatihi who was not part of the kingmakers for almost over a century, and yet chiefs were installed. It is not surprising that Danaa is a member of the Kpatihi family, who is a master at peddling lies to smear or tarnish the reputation of the Bangyili Royal Gate. Danaa should stop that attempt to usurp the enviable position of the Juo Naa for the Kpatihi family. No objective and level-headed Nanumba will back such a claim because it is dishonest and disingenuous to the custom, tradition, and history of Nanung.

Let it be admitted that Kpatihi Naa, Yidantogma was a distinguished and honorable man, so respected and truthful that he brought great honor to the title, kpatihi Naa. With honesty and integrity, he restored the dignity and glory of the Kpatihi family. Unfortunately, the gains chalked by him for his family and Nanung has been crushed by his two succeeding sons, kpatihi Naa Ponadow and the current Azindow, who undoubtedly are the Achilles heel of chieftaincy in Nanung. Through their conduct, the value of chieftaincy in Nanung has been severely eroded. Let nobody deceive himself into thinking that you can profit from an institution you have helped to crush.

The facts, the truth and the evidence
Danaa in his write-up attempted to cast aspersions on the integrity of the late Dakpam Naa Atta Natogma by stating that in the historic contest for the paramountcy between Naa Dassana and Bakpaba Naa DAWUNI, he (Dakpam Naa Attah Natogma) attempted to play down the consensus-building approach to selecting the paramount chief and tried to introduce the majority vote paradigm, but did not succeed. Danaa needs to know that even though Naa Dassana had the minority votes, he was eventually settled on, on account of the fact that the Nakpa skin was higher than the Bakpaba skin. Granting that, that was the case, doesn't Mr. Danaa, notice that it contradicts the position held by the Northern Regional House of Chiefs that Mr. Andani Dassana's choice was valid on account of the fact that in their estimation in modern democracy majority carries the vote?

This act of Danaa and his cohorts of choosing and picking what suits them is what we will aptly describe as a hypocrisy of the highest order. It even goes to confirm the position held by most Nanumbas that succession to the Bimbilla paramountcy is hierarchically defined and to back the bid of a prince who has no title and citing examples in the history of Nanung that do not fit into contemporary chieftaincy arrangement is complete thievery and have to be resisted as is currently the case in Nanung. So the majority carries the vote mantra, in the selection of chiefs, the Northern Regional House of Chiefs spewed out in their ruling is not supported by logic, common sense and the laws customs and tradition of Nanung. Let me repeat, in law, evidence is weighted but not counted, and evidence, if even adduced by a single person deserves credit.

Naa Sulgme, Dogiporga, Goyamba, Naa Salifu kurli, they are so quick to mention as chiefs who became chiefs without titles to back the fraudulent claim of Mr Andani to ascend the paramountcy is dishonest and disingenuous. This is because those were the formative years of the Nanung kingdom and they each sat in as regents before being confirmed as chiefs. Mr Andani was not his father's regent. More so, if they can conveniently cite Naa Sulgme to back their claim to paramountcy, then they have no moral justification to claim that Naa Salifu DAWUNI's lineage to Gbugmayili gate maternally (although in reality he is linked both maternally and paternally to Gbumayili gate) should be a hindrance to his being a paramount chief of Nanung.

This is because Naa Gmantambu at the time of his death had no son of his own and Naa Sulgme was his sister's son, and if the antecedence of history was to apply then in Nanung nephews could be qualified. But you see, Nanung kingdom was in its formative years, and for over a century now since the rotational principle between the Gbugmayili gate and Bangyili gate began, no one has used his naked name to ascend the throne of Bimbilla. So that picking and choosing to satisfy their naked greed and selfishness must stop. You are not wiser than the rest of Nanung.

In his write-up, Danaa also creates an impression that Dakpam Naa Dadinkai was not enskinned as a Bimbilla Naa because he was a great-grandson. That is a concoction, a fabrication, and a blatant lie. It is unfortunate that Danaa is misleading himself and his readers, because everyone who knows Nanung history knows that but for the untimely death of Dakpham Naa, Dadinkai before the final funeral rites of Naa Abudulai Andani, he (Dakpham Naa Dadinkai) was the next to become the Bimbilla Naa from the Bangyilli Royal Gate. He virtually had no contender since he was occupying the highest ranked skin of Dakpam in the Bangyili Royal Gate. The issue of Dakpam Naa Dadinkai being a great grandson, and therefore, was denied on account of that never arose at all. During that time, there was no Kpatihi Naa in the Bimbilla Naa's palace. In fact, as stated earlier, Kpatihi Naa Yidantogma was recognized Kpatihi Naa by Bimbilla Naa Natogma Attah II, and therefore, Kpatihi Naa Yidantogma had no role in the installation of the next paramount chief, Bimbilla Naa Natogma Attah II, who was promoted from the Gbengbalga skin to the paramountcy when Dakpam Naa Dadinkai died.

It is important to let readers know that, the operative and functional definition of a chief or who can be a chief under the customary law of Ghana is the person who can trace his lineage to an ancestor either by paternal or maternal bloodlines or patrilineal or matrilineal system of inheritance. Therefore, any traditional area that decides to put a cap to limit those who can become chiefs to only sons or grandsons are their own creation, as is the case in Dagbon, and must come out with evidence or precedence of such enactment, signed and agreed upon by the major stakeholders such as members of the royal gates involved and kingmakers, otherwise, the constitutional definition of who qualifies to ascend the paramountcy as per our customary law of Ghana applies.

Indeed, when our brethren in Dagbon were debating to limit those who qualify for the paramountcy to only sons, we in Nanung rejected it, with a clear understanding that chieftaincy was a clan property. In the debate on this matter among the stakeholders in Dagbon, proponents against the enactment to limit the ascension to the paramountcy to only sons cited Nanung as an example. This debate can be accessed from the book titled The Lords of Dagbon by Martin Staniland, who happens to be a Westerner, who studied and extensively wrote on Dagbon Chieftaincy issues.

It is reported when the idea of limiting succession to Bimbilla paramountcy was presented to the Nanumba Traditional Council during the reign or regime of Naa Abudulai Andani, he appeared to have bought into it. However, it was out rightly rejected because Dakpam Naa Dadinkai, who was next in line to become Bimbilla Naa from the side of Bangyilli Royal Gate, at that time, argued strongly that if Naa Abudulai Andani buys into the idea that only sons could ascend to the throne of Bimbilla Naa, then he (Naa Abudulai Andani) should abdicate the Bimbilla throne since he (Naa Abudulai Andani) was not a son of any Bimbilla Naa but was purportedly acclaimed to be a grandson of Jua Naa Andani, who in turn was one of the sons of Naa Gbugma. In that case Naa Abdulai was a grandson.

We re-emphasise the word purportedly the son of Jua/Nakpa Naa Andani because well researched history of nanung tells us that Naa Abudulai had no direct relationship with Naa Gbugma, but got connected to the gate through his association with Jua Naa Andani's maternal Uncle Yagri lana, but was loved so much by Jua Naa Andani who nurtured him. This explains why the very known appellation of Naa Abudulai Andani, was " wumsri gare dugra" (a child you raised could be better than a child you gave birth to) This has not been an issue to most people in Nanung to belabor because once he found himself in the line of the Chieftaincy and passed through the hierarchy defined to become the paramount chief, people of Nanung took it in their stride and accepted the status quo.

So there has not been anywhere or any time in the history of Nanung that, as a kingdom we have sat down to say that only sons and grandsons can become paramount chiefs. If anyone has that evidence he should provide it or shut up. In any case Mr. Danaa and those who share his views and the Northern Regional House of Chiefs have not been able to convince anybody why Mr Andani Dassana was more qualified above others, because at the time he laid claim to the title they were other people who were equally sons of paramount chiefs. So being a son alone could not be the only qualifying criteria because there were existing sons of the Gbugmayili gate who were much older than Mr Andani Dassana, but were never chosen to contest the title of Bimbilla Naa with Naa Salifu DAWUNI.

The right to vote in an election in Ghana is not limited only to being Ghanaian but also to be a registered voter of sound mind and attaining the voting age of eighteen. So on what basis Mr. Andani was chosen over and above people like Nzo Fusheini Balga and Yepalsi Naa. As for the twisted and warped story that he was selected by the head of the Gbugmayili gate is a fallacy because Gbugmayili is a clan designation and cannot be limited to only one string of the Gbugmayili, that is the Naa Abudulai and Naa Dassana hegemony. Other wings of the Gbugmayili included the lineage of Naa SHERU and Naa Mahama Kalo, who Naa Salifu DAWUNI traces his lineage from. More so it has never been the practice in Nanung that it is family heads who determine who should be paramount chiefs. Indeed the choice of chiefs have always been left to the institution of kingmakers to perform that role based on a predetermined qualification and selection criteria.

The claim of Naa Salifu DAWUNI'S relationship to the Gbugmayili gate is only maternally is a deliberate, and an orchestrated grand scheme, carefully rehearsed by the conspirators to water down his claim to the paramountcy. Otherwise, contrary to the attempt by Mr. Danaa and his conspirators to pin his lineage to Gbugmayili gate maternally, particularly in the adjudication processes at Northern Regional House of Chiefs that led to the verdict of 2012 it has never been the case.

Naa Dassa and Kpatihi Family disregard for Naa Abarika Attah II

The very early signs of disregard and disrespect to Naa Abarika's rulership, manifested when he enskinned Karaga lana Gbarigbari to Nakpa, in opposition to a lobby initiated by Kpatihi Naa Ponadow, to make Juo naa Mahama the Nakpa Naa. (Refer to the minutes of the kingmakers in January 1983 for details) When Kpatihi failed to secure that request, he together with Jua Naa Mahama in a counter, installed Nakpa Naa Mushe to Nakpa. It took the bold decision and integrity of Nakpa Naa Mushe to decline the installation they performed on him to avoid a very early confrontation within the chieftaincy cycles when Naa Abarika took over the reign of leadership of the Nanung kingdom.

It has always been a grand scheme by the kpatihi family to be the defacto paramount chief of Nanung. Sit somewhere and dictate and direct how the kingdom is governed to satisfy their own whims and caprices. No way, we know your actual status in Nanung chieftaincy, and will no longer tolerate this kind of belligerency in the scheme of affairs. Azindow does not simply have what it takes to direct affairs in nanung. We know clearly who he is made of. In any case kpatihi Naa Ponadow could not have been a better repository of the knowledge, traditions and customs of Nanung than Naa Abarika. He was old enough to be his father.

In life, principles are principles. You either have it or you don't have it, one can't assume a middle position in matters of right and wrong. However, it is regrettable and unfortunate to say this about someone we objectively consider one of the fallen heroes of Nanung, Kpatihi Naa Ponadow, who came across as somebody who was holding himself in that ambivalent position, claiming to be principled when indeed he was not. The claim that Naa Salifu DAWUNI'S relationship to the Gbugmayili gate is maternal is a deliberate orchestrated grand scheme, carefully rehearsed by the conspirators to water down his claim to the paramountcy. Otherwise, contrary to the attempt by Danaa and his conspirators to pin his lineage to Gbugmayili Royal Gate maternally, particularly in the court processes that led to the verdict of 2012, it has never been the case.

As stated earlier, Kpatihi Naa Ponadow didn’t come across as principled as is claimed because it was he who performed the enrobement or enskinment rites to make Naa Salifu DAWUNI the Bakpaba Naa. Everybody in Nanung knows that the Bakpaba skin is for chiefs who relate to the chieftaincy title paternally. Why did Kpatihi Naa Ponadow not refuse to enrobe or enskin Naa Salifu DAWUNI to Bakpaba Naa on principle if he thought Naa Salifu DAWUNI is related to the Gbugmayili Royal Gate only by maternal blood. As for this cock-and-bull stories about his relationship to Gbugmayili Royal Gate is only maternal is incomprehensible because it won't wash. Can Danaa explain to us why Naa Dassana himself enskinned Naa Salifu's father, Lepuhi Naa DAWUNI to Lepuhi if he knew he was related to the Gbugmayili Royal Gate only by maternal blood? These concocted, fabricated, blatant lies must stop because it doesn't resonate with sound logic, and only explains why we have these intra chieftaincy gate conflict among the Gbumayili Royal Gate.

For instance, when rumors of a legal action against Naa Abarika Attah II by Kpatihi Naa, Ponadow and Lepuhi Naa, over their disagreement with the enskinment or elevation of Bakpabnaa Salifu DAWUNI to Nakpa Naa surfaced, Kpatihi Naa Ponadow vehemently denied knowledge of the suit against Naa Abarika Attah II when he was invited to the WORIKPOMO's house and later at Naa Abarika Attah's palace. In the hall (zong) of Naa Abarika Attah II, with a Quran in hand he (Kpatihi Naa Ponadow) feigned innocence. But when the summons letter to the suit finally came, he (Kpatihi Naa Ponadow) was the first petitioner. Today, Danaa and his cohorts want everybody to clap for the Kpatihi family for being the kingpins of Nanung chieftaincy when in reality they are the setback to peace and tranquility in Nanung, which truncate the development of the Nanumba Traditional Area.

Truth be told, it is common knowledge in Nanung that the total disregard of the reign of Bimbilla Naa Abarika Attah II by the Dassana and Kpatihi families are the reasons why we are where we are today. Danaa and cohorts cannot disrespect a legitimately enskinned paramount chief, and hiding under the banner of political influence, trying hard to impose a prince without chieftaincy title on the people of Nanung or expect Nanumbas to pay homage to someone who gate crushed or attempted to leapfrog onto the paramountcy just because his father was once a Bimbilla Naa. There is an established precedence in Nanung as to who is qualified to contest to become the paramount chief of Bimbilla or Bimbilla Naa, which must be respected and it does not include a prince without a chieftaincy title. If every prince can just wake up one day to claim the title of Bimbilla Naa, because their father was a past Bimbilla Naa, then there will continue to be chaos in Nanung, because the good people of Nanung are aware of the established criteria for the succession of Bimbilla Naa.

The attempt by the Kpatihi family to single out Dakpam Naa Atta's family for vilification will never wash. The Bangyili family is a much unified family and guided by the sincerity and truthfulness of our fathers, grandfathers and great grandfathers. We are very conscious of the fact that kingship or leadership is gift of God. By the mercies of God, he has already made the Naa Dahamani family and by extension the core of the Bangyili gate is great. We do not need to be paramount chiefs at all cost to make an impact in Nanung. We will not scale the walls unreasonably and by that action crush the destiny of the Nanumba kingdom as has been done by some people.

You assume leadership to deliver progress to your people. You don't assume leadership to satisfy your very narrow personal ego and create a divided kingdom by pitching brothers against brothers and families against families. It is disgraceful, it is repugnant. We pray that we don't get counted as those who crushed the Nanung kingdom because of personal greed and selfishness. Our mindsets are not clouded by greed and discrimination. We are undoubtedly a significant stakeholder in the scheme of affairs in Nanung Chieftaincy, and any attempt by a very minority few like the Kpatihi family to consign as to the periphery is wishful thinking.

It is with clearness of conscience and mind that Naa Natogma Attah II had to perform ritual sacrifices to reinstitute the title of the Kpatihi Naa in the palace of the Bimbilla Naa, and by the confidence reposed in Kpatihi Naa Yidantogma he carved a niche for your family and if by the recklessness and greed of succeeding Kpatihi Nanima you can crush the integrity of your family that is your bane. We continue to remain resolute.

BANGYILI ROYAL GATE COMMUNICATIONS
Written by Prince Abarika Yabdow

body-container-line