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

By Danaa Nantogmah

17 Nov 2017

Introduction:
The Nanun kingdom was founded by Naa Nmantambu in the thirteenth century and like many African societies with kingship succession issues, they arise from time to time. Succession to the Bimbilla Skin is patrilineal and requires direct blood relationship with past Bimbilla. In other words, to ascend to the skin, a prospective applicant must be a son of a Bimbilla Naa or a patrilineal grandson of a Bimbilla Naa. Conflicts over succession are not new but the traditional system has mechanisms for resolving such conflicts; and in modern times, they include the Traditional Council, Regional House of Chiefs and the National House of Chiefs, and the judicial system of the Republic of Ghana.

From Naa Nmantambu to Bimbilla Naa Andani Dasana Abdulai (2004-2014), Nanun has produced thirty-two kings. The current impasse between Bimbilla Naa Andani Dasana Abdulai and the late Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni over succession is not new, but what is new is an attempt to introduce a matrilineal inheritance system in Nanun.

Who are the two contestants?
Bimbilla Naa Andani Dasana Abdulai (1^st Defendant) is the son of Bimbilla Dassana Abdulai and the grandson of Bimbilla Naa Abdulai Kurugu-kpaa and has rightly been confirmed committee as quoted below

The Committee hereby unanimously holds that the 1^st defendant had qualified to be nominated as Bimbilla Naa having validly gone through all the necessary processes of nomination, selection, election, enskinment and installation in accordance with Nanum custom (pp.47-48) [2]

Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni (1^stPetitioner) son of Lepuhi Naa Dawuni, son of Princess Kasua, daughter of Nakpa Naa Nyei Dini, son Naa Gbugma. Clearly does not qualify to even contest as he is not having patrilineal relationship to the Bimbilla Skin.

Q. Who is your father’s father?
A. Nabiyon Dramani-Nabiyon is a royal but he never became a chief.

These answers without any shadow of doubt revealed to the committee that the 1^st petitioner is not a grandson. At best the 1^st petitioner was a great grandson because his grandfather was Nabiyon Dramani. (pp.29-30). It is only when the occupant of the Nakpa skin is a son of a former Bimbilla Naa or grandson of a former Bimbilla Naa that he can move on to become a Bimbilla (p.36). But the truth is that the late Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni is not only a great grandson of Bimbilla Naa Azumah but more importantly, he is related to the Gbugmayili through maternal blood (ibid, p.27).

The committee after thorough evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties finds and I quote:

that the 1^st petitioner has no capacity to bring this action to the committee under the erroneous title Bimbilla Naa, a title which he does not hold in accordance with the findings of this committee(Northern Region House of Chiefs, 2012, ,p.49)

Not satisfied with the ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Northern Region House of Chiefs dated 13^th March, 2013, the late Nakpa Salifu Dawuni filed an appeal at the National House of Chiefs with Suit No: NHC/2012. Below are the RULINGS [3] of the National House of Chiefs dated 25^th August, 2014:

“Nananom, there is ample evidence on record that other Bimbilla Naas did not occupy lesser skins before occupying the Bimbilla skin. This warranted their being conferred titles before the enskinments. The 1^st Respondent could be nominated, selected and enskinned as Bimbilla Naa because he qualified by birth and was given a title in accordance with traditional practice before his enskinment.” (National House of Chiefs, 2014, p45)

“Nananom, the Appellants did not argue any ground against the findings that 2^nd Respondent is the Kpatihi of Nanum and also the person who possesses the regalia for enskinment of Bimbilla-Naa. In effect, Appellants appeal against 2^nd Respondent fails.” (ibid)

“Nananom, it is our humble prayer and submission that this appeal be dismissed and the Judgement of the Committee below affirmed. The appeal is procedurally defective and pathetic in substance “

Despite these overwhelming evidences, it is ironic and pathetic, and contrary to His Excellency President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo’s recent directives and public pronouncement to the effect that his government will not meddle in the numerous chieftaincy disputes across the country as stated: “I have no interest other than the peace and security of Dagbon. Any official of mine, who is seen to be impeding the resolution of the matter, according to customs will have me to play” [4]

Notwithstanding this categorical statement by the president, Hon. Dominic Nitiwul, Member of Parliament for Bimbilla constituency and Defence Minister and Hon. Salifu Sa-eed, Northern Regional Minister are meddling in the Bimbilla Chieftaincy conflict which has resulted in the burial and installation of Nakpa Naa’s regent contrary to the directives of the Northern Regional Security Council: Our Ref: AC66/328/0IV/29 dated 12^th October, 2017 which read: ‘for the avoidance of doubt you are to desist from any acts such as the installation of a regent, drumming and any related activities that have not been cleared by the Regional Security Council”.

Background
The Mole-Dagbom Kingdom was established in the thirteenth century by Naa Gbewaah around the present town of Pusiga in the Upper East region of the Republic of Ghana. According to oral history, the Mamprusi, Dagbombas and Manumeas are all descendants of Tohadzie - the red hunter. Gbewaah is one of the four sons of Kpognambo, who was the only son of Tohadzie. After the death of Naa Gbewaah, a power struggle over succession (Nam) among his sons ensued which led to the disintegration of the Greater Dagbon Kingdom. Tohagu, Sitobu and Nmantambu all sons of Naa Gbewaah migrated southward with their followers from Pusiga to present day Northern region in Ghana. Tohagu the eldest of the three founded the Mamprusi kingdom with the chieftaincy title Nayiri. Sitobu founded the Dagbon kingdom with the title Ya Naa and Nmantambu founded the Nanun kingdom with the title Bimbilla Naa. [5]

The Nayiri, who is the eldest and in the absence of Naa Gbewaah serves as the final arbitrator in any chieftaincy dispute in Dagbon and Nanun. In other words, the ‘Traditional Supreme Court” on chieftaincy matters among the descendants of Naa Gbewaah must be referred to the Nayiri arbitration and all parties must accept the judgement of the Nayiri.

Naa Nmantambu and the Nanun Kingdom
Naa Nmantambu founded the Nanun kingdom around the thirteenth century. After the death of Na Nmantambu, Naa Sul-Nme (Surima) was enskinned as the Bimbilla Naa and followed by Naa Dogi Poriga. From Nmanatambu to Naa Mamani (11^th), Nanun had no royal gate system, until after the death of Naa Azuma-Naa Gbungmah who established the Gbungmayili gate. All three kings of the Nanun kingdom after Naa Azuma were all from the Gbungmayili gate. After the death of Naa Sumani (15^th), Naa Abarika was enskinned as the 16^th Bimbilla Naa and he founded the Bangyili gate. Since the rule of Naa Abarika, the Nanun kingdom established a rotational system between Gbungmayili and Bangyili. From Naa Nmantambu to Naa Andani Dasana Abdulai II, the Nanun Kingdom has produced thirty-two (32) rulers of the Nanun Kingdom. [6] With the exception of Naa Sul-Nme and Naa Dogi Poriga, all persons who have ascended to the Bimbilla skin has either been a son or a grandson by patrilineal descent.

Ascension to Bimbilla Skin: Who qualifies?

Nanun practice a patrilineal system of succession. The primary requirement to qualify any royal to ascend to the Bimbilla Skin is that you MUST have a direct blood relationship with the Bimbilla Skin. That is, a prospective applicant to a vacant Bimbilla Skin must be a son of a Bimbilla Naa or a grandson (patrilineal) of a Bimbilla Naa (emphasis mine). In a situation where all applicants meet the primary requirement, the one who occupies the most senior skin shall be selected and enskinned as Bimbilla Naa. From Naa Nmantambu it was not rotational until the reign of Bimbilla Naa Gbugma (12^th Bimbilla Naa), founder of the Gbugmayili gate, and Naa Abarika I (16^thBimbilla Naa) founder of the Bangyili gate. Since Naa Abarika I, the Bimbilla skin has rotated between Gbugmayili and Bangyili gates.

The Kpatihi Family and Nanun ‘Nam’

The Kpatihi family is one of the few families who travelled along with Naa Nmantambu, the founder of the Nanumba Kingdom (the Nanumba Traditional Area). The family headed by the Kpatihi Naa is one of the Nine (9) kingmakers [7] of Nanun who are customarily the ‘electoral college’ responsible for the vetting, selection and enskinment of Bimbilla Nanima (Chiefs). The Kpatihi is the only skin in the Nanumba Traditional area that has only one gate, all other skins (including Bimbilla) have at least two (2) gates, Ascension to the Kpatihi skin is hereditary and automatic, and therefore to become a Kpatihi you must be the eldest in the Kpatihi family. Kpatihi Naa Azumah Nantogmah from 1994 to date. The Kpatihi family is the sole custodian of Nanun Regalia and the Kpatihi-Naa is solely responsible for performing the enskinment rites to make a qualified candidate a Bimbilla Naa.

Bimbilla Naa Abarika Attah II (1982-1999)
The Bimbilla Naa Abarika Attah II was enskinned as the 31st Bimbilla Naa by the late Kpatihi Ponadow Nantogmah in 1982. According to Nanun customs and tradition, after the enskinment of a Bimbilla Naa, the regent of his predecessor, in this case Borgu Naa Mahama Dasana, the regent of Bimbilla Naa Dasana Abdulai, should have been promoted to a senior skin. At the time that Naa Abarika ascended to the Skin of Bimbilla, the Nakpa skin was vacant due to the demise of the Nakpa Naa Nantogma II.

After the funeral of Nakpa Naa Nantogma II, it was expected that Juana Naa Musah Abdulai will be promoted to the Nakpa skin and Borgu Naa Mahama Dasana (regent of Naa Dasana Abdulai) would be promoted to Juanayili as tradition demands. Naa Abarika Attah II, enskinned Kariga Naa Dawuni Gbarigbari, son of Nakpa Naa Attah and grandson of Bimibilla Naa Shero Azuma as the Nakpa Naa-Nakpa Naa Dawuni Gbarigbari. It is important to emphasise that even though some chiefs in the Gbungmayili gate were unhappy with Naa Abarika II’s choice, no one challenged the decision of Naa Abarika Attah II because Nakpa Dawuni Gbarigbari met the primary qualification criteria to ascend to the Bimbilla skin which is “for any royal to ascend to the Bimbilla skin he must be a son or a grandson (patrilineal) of a Bimbilla Naa.”

Enskinment of Bakpaba Naa Salifu Dawuni

One of the myths in the Bimbilla skin impasse is that when the Bakpaba skin became vacant, no Gbungmayili royals expressed interest in Bakpaba, which is the reason why Naa Abarika Attah II promoted Alhaji Salifu Dawuni to the Bakpaba skin. Actually, the fact is that when the Bakpaba skin became vacant, two Gbungmayili: Lepuhi Na Azumah Abdulai and Kariga Lana Nantogma Haruna expressed their interest in the Bakpaba skin through laid down procedures in accordance with customs and tradition.

Enskinment of Bakpaba Naa Salifu Dawuni as Nakpa Naa

After the final funeral rites of Nakpa Naa Musah Abdulai in January 1990, the Nkapa skin became vacant and prospective qualified royals from the Gbugmayili Gate expressed interest in the Nakpa skin in accordance with Nanun Tradition and culture. However to the surprise of the Gbungmayili gate, it became clear that Naa Abarika Attah II had already nominated Bakpaba Naa Salifu Dawuni as his preferred candidate for the vacant Nakpa skin. This prompted a meeting of Gbunmayili Gate chiefs and a petition “on a Qualified Candidate for the Nakpa Skin” [8] to the Northern Regional Administration dated January 16, 1990. Below are extracts from the Petition:

“We the under listed chiefs of the Gbumayili gate wish to put this letter to your office. The decisions that follows below is taken in the interest of the District, Region and the nation at large”.

“At a family gathering it was unanimously agreed that the Kariga-Naa Nantogma Haruna or the Lepuhi-Naa Azumah Abudulai who are the only surviving sons of Bimbilla Nanima, and thus father of the gbumayili should be made the Nakpa Naa”

“We are therefore trying to inform you beforehand that if any person other than the mentioned is enskinned the next Nakpa Naa there shall be no peace. We are strongly against the enskinment of any person beside the two mentioned chiefs. And this to pre-inform you that we are protecting violence in the district that is why we write” [9]

Clearly, Bimbilla Naa Abarika Attah II ignored the pleas of the Gbumayili chiefs and proceeded to enskin Bakpaba Naa Salifu Dawuni as Nakpa Naa sowing the seed for this protracted Bimbilla Skin impasse. The decision to enskin Bakpaba Naa Salifu Dawuni as Nakpa Naa, was against the good counselling of the late Kpatihi-Naa Ponadow Nantogmah -who informed Naa Abarika that Bakpaba Naa Salifu Dawuni was not a Bimbilla royal and therefore did not qualify for enskinment as Nakpa Na”.

It is important to note that the Judicial Committee of the Northern Regional House of Chiefs in the ruling indicted the late Naa Abarika Attah II for the current impasse on succession to the Bimbilla skin. The Committee observed:

“…..the committee painfully found as a fact that the wrongful nomination or appointment of the 1^st petitioner by the latest king of Nanum-Bimbilla Naa Abarika Attah II was undoubtedly the cause of this protracted chieftaincy dispute in Nanum. The Gbugmayili family members and some kingmakers of Nanum together did not only object to it but they vehemently challenged it…….”(Emphasis mine) [10]

Dr. Mohammed Ibn Chambas and the Nakpa Skin/Bimbilla Chieftaincy Conflict

After the wrongful nomination and enskinment of Bakpaba Naa Salifu Dawuni as Nakpa Naa, Lepuhi Naa Azuma Abdulai and Kpatihi Naa Ponadow Nantogmah petitioned the Northern Regional House of Chiefs over the wrongful enskinment of Nakpa Naa Dawuni: Lepuhi Naa Azuma (1^st Petitioner) and Kpatihi Naa Ponadow Nantogmah (2^nd Petitioner) versus Bimbilla Naa Abarika Attah II. The Northern Regional Judicial Committee constituted a three member committee including Yunyoo-Rana Yamyia Tookali.

After several years of hearing, we understand that Committee ruled in favour of Bimbilla Abarika Attah II. Ironically, till today, the proceedings of the Committee and its ruling on the matter between Lepuhi Naa Azuma Abdulai and Kpatihi Naa Ponadow Nantogmah versus Bimbilla Naa Abarika Attah II remain in secrecy. A written request for the Court Proceedings and Ruling of the Judicial Committee on the ‘Nakpa Skin’ by the author was met with a verbal response from the registrar of the Northern Regional House of Chiefs- ‘we do not have court proceedings and the ruling on this matter with us. I understand there was an appeal at the National House of Chiefs”. However, through our research, we learned that the only reason the committee ruled in favour of Bimbilla Naa Abarika Attah II was the intervention and influence of Dr. Mohammed Ibn Chambas, under Secretary for Foreign Affairs and later Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs under President Jerry John Rawlings (1981-2000). On the verdict of the Committee, one of the three panel members observed:

“My father Kpatihi Naa, you presented a formidable case, we should have ruled in your favour but Dr. Mohammed Ibn Chambas used his political influence to deny you justice”

Certainly, if Dr. Mohammed Ibn Chambas did not use his political influence in the P.N.D.C. and N.D.C. government to tamper with the course of justice in the Nakpa Skin Affair, this current impasse over the Bimbilla skin with its needless deaths and destruction of property would not have occurred in the first place:

“Dr Mohammed Ibn Chambas [11] , Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General for West Africa and the Sahel is responsible for the protracted Bimbilla Chieftaincy dispute. Not only did he fail to counsel the late Bimbilla Naa Abarika on the nomination and enskinment of Salifu Dawuni as Bakpaba Naa and Nakpa, but more importantly, he used his position as Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and as Member of Parliament for the Bimbilla Constituency to influence the Judicial Committee of the Northern Regional House of Chiefs to rule in favour of the late Bimbilla Naa Abarika Attah in the Nakpa Chieftaincy dispute” (Emphasis mine) [12]

But one may ask who Dr Mohammed Ibn Chambas is? What is his interest in the Bimbilla skin impasse? The answers to these questions are not far-fetched. Dr. Mohammed Ibn Chambas is the son of DC Chamba, son of Princess Zara Chamba, daughter of Nabiyon Adama, son of Chamba Naa Iddirisah, son of Bimbilla Naa Peenkpa. Dr. Chambas is a great grandson (matrilineal) of Naa Peenkpa and is related to the Bangyili gate maternally in the same way as Nakpa Salifu Dawuni is related maternally to the Gbunmayili gate.

That said, Dr. Mohammed Ibn Chambas’ support for Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni seeks to introduce matrilineal succession into Nanun kingship with the ascension of Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni to the Bimbilla skin and thereby paving the way for not only great grandsons (patrilineal) but more importantly non-Bimbilla royals like Dr. Chambas who is related to the Bangyili gate maternally to also aspire to ascend to the Bimbilla skin.

Dakpam Naa Nantogmah Attah, Naa Nantogmah and (family) and the Bimbilla Chieftaincy

Dakpam Naa Nantogmah Attah was the son of Dakpam Naa Attah, son of Bimbilla Naa Dahamani, son of Bimbilla Naa Abarika I. The late Dakpam Naa Nantogmah Attah was among the first generation of Nanun scholars. In the First Republic under Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, he was the Member of Parliament for Nanumba constituency. Being a royal and a scholar, one would have thought that he would use his knowledge and privileged position for the development of Nanun but that was not to be.

Enskinment of Bimbilla Naa Dassana Abdulai in 1959.

After the final funeral rites for Bimbilla Naa Nantogmah II (1944-1959) of the Bangyili gate, it was time for the kingship to move to Gbungmayili gate. At the time Naa Dassana son of Naa Abdulai Kurugu-kpa was the chief of Nakpa and Bakpaba Naa Dawuni Kuro, son of Nakpa Naa Attah and grandson of Bimbilla Naa Shero [13] was the chief of Bakpaba. While Bakpaba Naa Dawuni Kuro, was older than Naa Dassana, Naa Dassana occupied the Nakpa skin which is senior in the rank of chieftaincy titles. At the instance of the late Dakpam Naa Nantogmah Attah, and contrary to Nanun culture and traditions, a Nanun Traditional Council meeting was called. According to one person who was present at the meeting, this is what ensued:

“Dakpam Naa Nantogmah informed the council that the time tested consensus decision making system of Nanun Kingmakers will be changed to a majority system. And since Nanun Kingmakers are nine (9), he asked that those who were in favour of Bakpaba Naa Dawuni Kuro raise their hands. At the end of the process six (6) Kingmakers voted for Bakpaba Naa Dawuni Kuro and three (3) led by Kpatihi Nantogmah Attah voted for Bimbilla Naa Dassana Abdulai. After the voting, the late Dakpam Naa Nantogmah Attah declared Bakpaba Naa Dawuni Kuro as Bimbilla Naa”

“Kpatihi Naa Nantogmah Attah told Dakpam Naa that he cannot change the decision making system from consensus to majority. As night fell on the day of this meeting Kpatihi Nantogmah Attah enskinned Naa Dassana Abdulai as the 30^th Bimbilla Naa in accordance with the culture and tradition of Nanun”

This resulted in the enskinment of two Bimbilla Nanima and producing a short impasse. The Nkrumah government dispatched the late Northern Regional Commissioner, Mr. Lawrence Rosario Abavana to Bimbilla. After investigating claims of Bakpaba Naa Dawuni Kuro and Naa Dassana, the inquiry concluded that Bimbilla Naa Dassana, who was duly enskinned by Kpatihi Nantogmah Attah was the rightful claimant to the Bimbilla Skin. Ironically, despite been a Member of Parliament, ‘Kpatihi Nantogmah Attah who was unschooled defeated the educated Dakpam Nantogmah Attah; truth will always triumph”

Enskinment of Bimbilla Naa Andani Dasana Abdulai (2003-2004)

After the final funeral of Naa Abarika II (Bangyili), it was the turn of the Gbungmayili gate and a family meeting of Gbungmayili chiefs and royals was convened and the late Bimbilla Naa Andani Dasana Abdulai was nominated by consensus and presented to the kingmakers. After the nomination of Naa Andani Dassana Abdulai was made public, the children [14] of Bangyili skin led by Vo-Naa Attah Abarika (regent of Naa Abarika II), Naa Nantogmah II’s children and Dakpam Naa Nantogmah Attah’s children signed a Petition dated 26^th March, 2003 to Nanun kingmakers and stated among other things that: “we are appealing to your honourable selves to do the right thing by insisting on and going by laid down custom and tradition for the peaceful selection of Bimbilla Naa”

In furtherance to the above petition of children of the Bangyili Gate, the late Dakpam Naa Nantogmah Attah wrote a letter dated 7^th March, 2004 [15] to the Northern Regional Minister through the Nanumba District Chief Executive stating the position of the Bangyili gate on the nomination of Naa Andani and I quote the relevant portions (clauses 2, 5 and 6): At our meeting, it was established that:

“That in the Gbungmayili Gate the Nakpa-Na is the most senior chief and he is entitled to be enskinned Bimbilla Naa in the event of the death of the Bimbilla who is from the Bangyili Gate”- Clause 2

“It was established that succession to the skin of Bimbilla is not a transfer from father to son but rather it is a clan property given to whoever occupies the most senior title within the clan or Gate”- Clause 5

“That this arrangement was applicable before the Germans arrived in Nanun, when the British took over and finally Government of Independent Ghana ever since. The arrangement has always been the authority and reference in any dispute occasion”- Clause 6

Before we address the issues raised in the Bangyili Gate children’s petition and the position taken by the late Dakpam Naa Nantogmah Attah, one question comes to mind: Why is the Dakpam Naa and his children insisting on selecting and enskinning Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni as Bimbilla Naa for the Gbungmayili Gate? What is the interest of the late Dakpam Naa Nantogmah Attah’s children in the Bimbilla chieftaincy conflict?

Clearly reading through the content of the above letter in general and clauses 2, 5, and 6 in particular, reveals that either Dakpam Naa Nantogmah Attah was ignorant of Nanun history, culture and traditions or he was simply economical with the truth.

Fallacy 1- Clauses 2, and 6: “Ascension to the Bimbilla Skin is most senior chief” The reality is that ascension to the Bimbilla Skin the candidate must first and foremost, be either a son or grandson of a Bimbilla Naa. The second criteria -‘most senior chief in the gate is only applicable if all applicants are sons or grandsons patrilineal:

“in 1944, after the final funeral rites of Naa Abdula Kurugu-kpa, the most senior Bangyili Chief was Dakpam Naa Dadinke [16] , great grandson of Naa Peenkpa because he did not meet the primary requirement, kingmakers selected Naa Nantogmah II, who was a grandson but occupying a lesser skin Gbungbaliga” (Emphasis mine)

At the time of taking this position, it is unthinkable, that the late Dakpam Naa Nantogmah Attah was unaware of this time tested practice of which his brother Naa Nantogmah II was a beneficiary. Evidence available suggests no great grandson has ever ascended to the Bimbilla Skin:

From the forgoing analyses, it is not far-fetched to assign the following reason for the continuous support of Nankpa Naa Salifu Dawuni by Dakpam Naa’s children. As it stands now, all the sons of the late Dakpam Naa Nantogmah Attah including Alhassan Nantogma, Lawyer Mohammed Attah Nantogmah, Dr. Abukari Attah Nantogmah and Attah Amidu, just to mention a few are great grandsons of Naa Dahamani and therefore cannot ascend to the Bimbilla Skin. Thus, their support of Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni is in expectation that in the event that Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni who is a great grandson (matrilineal) of the Gbugmayili Gate is accepted as Bimbilla Naa, they as great grandsons (patrilineal) of the Bangyili gate will be more than qualified to ascend to the Bimbilla skin.

That said, it is pathetic that some Bangyili gate families [17] are the supporters of Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni. Ironically, the Judicial Committee finds it amazing why: “the 1^st petitioner who needed proof to establish his qualification to occupy the Bimbilla skin declined or avoided to call a Gbungmayili family member including his own blood brother to testify and support his evidence” [18]

The Nayiri Mediation of the Bimbilla Chieftaincy Conflict

After several failed attempts to reach consensus on a candidate to ascend to the Bimbilla Skin and in line with a time tested tradition system of chieftaincy disputes resolution among Naa Gbewaa descendants, the nine kingmakers of Nanun agreed and referred the matter to Nayiri Naa Bohugu Mahami Abdulai, the King of Mamprugu. A Note of Commitment [19] was signed on 18^th October, 2005 at the Nayiri Palace in Nalerigu. On 30^th October, 2005, the Nayiri communicated his findings and verdict [20] to the Northern Regional Minister, the Nanumba Traditional Council and all interested parties. Paragraph 4 of the letter read:

“After these processes, I told the gathering including the Kingmakers that I have thoroughly investigated the rival claims of Mr. Andani Dasana and Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni, and made exhaustive traditional consultations, regarding the dispute. Finally, I informed the Kingmakers that I had chosen Mr. Andani Dasana to be enskinned Bimbilla”

Judgements - Northern Regional House of Chiefs and National House of Chiefs (2005-2014)

Soon after the Nayiri’s verdict, Nakpa Naa Salifu the Northern Regional House of Chiefs SUIT NO: Bimbilla Naa Salifu Dawuni (1^st Petitioner) and Juo Regent Osman Mahama (Plaintiffs) Versus Andani Dasana and Azumah Nantogmah (Defendants). After nearly ten (10) years of proceedings, the Judicial Committee of the Northern Regional House Chiefs RULED as follows:

Judgement
By their petition filed on 10^th February, 2004 the petitioners are contending that the 1^st petitioner is the rightful person to occupy the Bimbilla Skin as Bimbilla Naa and acting in that capacity are claiming against the defendants the following:-

DECLARATION that the 1^st petitioner is the Bimbilla-Naa duly nominated and enskinned in accordance with the Nanum custom.
DECLARATION that the 2^nd petitioner is the sole authority to nominate a candidate for the enskinment as Bimbilla Naa
DECLARATION that the purported nomination of the 1^st defendant by the 2^nd defendant and the subsequent purported enskinment of the 1^st defendant as Bimbilla Naa are nullities
DECLARATION that the 2^nd defendant is not a kingmaker within the Nanum custom and is also not a Regent of Kpatihi-Na[21]

RULING:-

2^nd Defendant-Kpatihi-Na Azumah Nantogmah

Again in a document entitled Journal of Legal Pluralism written by Peter Shalnik which is the only written document available to the committee on the chieftaincy issues of Nanum the author disclosed the importance of the Kpatihi-Na in Nanum Chieftaincy affairs particularly in the robing of the chiefs. The author stated at page 311 paragraph 2 and I quote the relevant portions as follows: “The Kpatihi Na has a very special position. My information indicates that his function of “Skinmaker” a ceremonialist who enskins chiefs on behalf of Bimbilla Naa was only recently introduced into Nanum probably under the influence of Dagbon. But the Kpatihi family is also believed to have come with Mantambo in his retinue. At any rate the present Kpatihi Naa Ponado enskinned by members of his family, the only dignitaries to enskin themselves on 4^th January 1983 had more influence on the procedures of Bimbilla Naa’s funeral than any of the electors” (p.21)

In the case in this instance, the committee rather finds the evidence of the defendant formidable. The committee therefore holds “that Kpatihi Naa or his representative is a kingmaker of Nanum. That Kpatihi Naa also takes custody of Nanum regalia which he uses to enskin Bimbilla Naas as well as Juo Naas of Nanum. Accordingly the 2^nd defendant acts in those capacities.” (p.25)

1^stDefendant – the late Bimbilla Naa Andani Dasana II

The Committee hereby unanimously holds that the 1^st defendant had qualified to be nominated as Bimbilla Naa having validly gone through all the necessary processes of nomination, selection, election, enskinment and installation in accordance with Nanum custom (pp.47-48)[22]

1^st Petitioner - Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni

The next significant issues to be considered is whether or not a person who is not a son or grandson of a Bimbilla Naa can become Bimbilla Naa. The case of the defendants on this issue is that the 1^st petitioner is a great grandson and for that matter is not qualified to be Bimbilla Naa in accordance with Nanum custom. The defendants also assert unanimously together with their witnesses that the 1^st petitioner is not only a great grandson but also is related to the Gbungmayili family maternally (p.25)

Q Who is your father’s father?

A. Nabiyon Dramani-Nabiyon is a royal but he never became a chief.

These answers without any shadow of doubt revealed to the committee that the 1^st petitioner is not a grandson. At best the 1^st petitioner was a great grandson because his grandfather was Nabiyon Dramani. (pp.29-30). It is only if the occupant of the Nakpa skin is a son of a former Bimbilla Naa or grandson of a former Bimbilla Naa that he can become a Bimbilla (p.36)

The committee after thorough evaluation of the evidence adduced by the parties finds that the 1^st petitioner has no capacity to bring this action to the committee under the erroneous title Bimbilla Naa, a title which he does not hold in accordance with the findings of this committee (p.49)

Not satisfied with the verdict of the Northern Regional House of Chiefs, the late Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni appealed to the National House of Chiefs SUIT NO: NGC.INR./2012. After an exhaustive review of the suit, the Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs on 25^th August 2014 RULED as follows:

Judgement

This is an appeal by the Petitioners/Appellants herein against the Judgement of Judicial Committee of the Northern Regional House of Chiefs, Tamale delivered on 13^th March 2012.

By this notice of appeal filed on 16/03/2012, the Appellants set down the following grounds of appeal:

The Judgement is against the weight of evidence
Additional grounds to be filed upon receipt of the judgement

No additional grounds of appeal were filed until 14th August, 2014. The additional grounds of appeal are as follows: [23]

RULING
Nananom, there is ample evidence on record that other Bimbilla Naa did not occupy lesser skins before occupying the Bimbilla skin. This warranted their being conferred titles before the enskinments. The 1^st Respondent could be nominated, selected and enskinned as Bimbilla Naa because he qualified by birth and was given a title in accordance with traditional practice before his enskinment. (National House of Chiefs, 2014, p45)

Nananom, the Appellants did not argue any grounds against the findings that the 2^nd Respondent is the Kpatihi of Nanum and also the person who possesses the regalia for enskinment of the Bimbilla-Naa. In effect, Appellants’ appeal against 2^nd Respondent fails. (ibid)

Nananom, it is our humble prayer and submission that this appeal be dismissed and the Judgement of the Committee below affirmed. The appeal is procedurally defective and pathetic in substance (appendix II, p. 46)

The Burial of Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni, 11 October, 2017

Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni died on 5^th March, 2014 and his mortal remains kept in Yendi Government hospital. The reasons why Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni has not been buried until now are: i) the kingships title to bury him with and ii) where to place to him. With regards to a kingship title to bury him with, as per the rulings of the Northern Regional House and the National Houses of Chiefs, Nakpa Naa Salifu “has no capacity to bring this action to the committee under the erroneous title Bimbilla Naa, a title which he does not hold in accordance with the findings of this committee” (Emphasis mine). Therefore the only title he held and should be buried with is Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni. On the question of the burial place of Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni, in line with Nanum kingship tradition and culture, he should be buried in Nakpa village.

Notwithstanding the issues raised above and in clear violations of existing judgments on the matter at hand as well as disregard for the Regent of Bimbilla, Nyelinborgu Naa Yakubu Andani Dasana and the Nanumba Traditional Council, Hon. Salifu Saeed, Northern Regional Minister under the pretense that “on a medical report on the deteriorating state of the mortal remains of the chief who died on 5^th March, 2004” and conferred on the late Nakpa Naa Salifu the title ‘Naa Salifu Dawuni’:

“The Regional Security Council has taken a decision on the burial of the late Naa Salifu Dawuni whose body currently lies in your custody. Accordingly, we hereby request for the release of the body to the family under security protection on Wednesday 11^th October, 2017” [24]

Another letter reads:
“Subsequent to the burial of the late Naa Salifu Dawuni, the Regional Security Council hereby directs that no further act should be undertaken by you without clearance from the Council.

“For the avoidance of doubt you are to desist from acts such as the installation of a regent, drumming and any related activities that have not been cleared from the Regional Security Council” [25]

In clear disregard for the above directives and with impunity, the Nakpa Naa’s family claim they have installed a regent and are demanding the performance of traditional activities at the burial place of the late Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni in Bimbilla. Below are extracts of a letter to the District Security by Nakpa Naa’s family:

“As the bereaved family, we wish to commend you for the support granted us leading to the burial of the late Naa Salifu Dawuni.”

“Accordingly, we have the pleasure to inform you that early morning Thursday 12^th October 2017, the regent was enskinned with the skin title Sang-Lana and subsequently installed as the regent in line with Nanung customary practice and usage” [26]

While the above action and inaction of the Northern Regional Minister has not only undermined the traditional authority of Nyelinborgu Naa Yakubu Andani Dasana but more importantly has created tension in Bimbilla, the Defence Minister, Hon Dominic Nitiwul is on the other hand assuring the Bimbilla Regent that President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo’s government will not do anything to undermine his authority:

“President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo Addo instructed him to ensure that the late Nakpa Naa’s body was decomposing at the Yendi Hospital and that the President has copies of all the Judgements in respect of the various judgement at the Regional and National Houses of Chiefs. That the President is aware the matter is pending at the Supreme Court but that President believes that Nakpa Salifu Dawauni can never become Bimbilla Naa. That the Nana Addo led Government will not do anything to undermine the Traditional Authority of the Regent of Bimbilla Naa Andani Dasana, Nyelinborgu Naa, Yakubu Andani Dasana” [27]

In view of the above contradictory narratives, the good people of Ghana in general, and in particular the law abiding people of Nanun demand and deserve ANSWERS to the following QUESTIONS from government:

What informed His Excellency President Akufo Addo’s directive that the late Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni be buried in Bimbilla in gross disrespect of existing Judgments in the Bimbilla Chieftaincy Conflict?
Why has the government conferred on the late Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni ‘Naa Salifu Dawuni?
Why has the family of Nakpa Salifu Dawuni continuously disregarded government directives?
Why were the Bimbilla Regent and the Nanumba Traditional Council not consulted on the burial of the late Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni?

As we wait for answers to the above questions, security reports from Bimbilla indicate that tension has mounted and violence can break out at any time. Also the District Security Council (DISEC) letter dated 31^st October 2017 confirms the deteriorating security situation in Bimbilla. Accordingly DISEC is of the view that: “ the interpretation should be done before the Damba Festival since both parties may want to perform certain customary rites associated with the festival which could destabilize the peace in the Bimbilla township.”

Conclusion: How can government be encouraging and facilitating lawlessness?

From the rulings of Nayiri, the Northern Regional House of Chiefs and the National House Chiefs, it is manifestly clear that Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni is not a Bimbilla Royal and cannot ascend to the Bimbilla Skin. Ironically, the government whose principal duty it is to enforce the Rule of Law, is instead through its actions and inactions, has and is still encouraging the acts of lawlessness of the Nakpa Naa’s family in Bimbilla.

References

Northern Regional House of Chiefs (2012) Judicial Committee of the Northern Regional House of Chiefs, 13^th March, 2012, Tamale
National House of Chiefs (2014) Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs, 23^rd August, 2014

Appendix I-V Letters and correspondence Appendix I
RCC letter: Request for the Release of the Body of the Late Naa Salifu Dawuni, dated 10^th October, 2017

Appendix II

Appendix III
Nakpa Naa Salifu Family Performance of Traditional activities in Bimbilla, dated 30^th October, 2017

Appendix V: Letter by DEC on the Performance of Traditional Activities in Bimbilla, dated 30 October, 2017

Appendix VI. Petition
C/o NANUMBA TRADITION COUNCIL
P.O. Box 21
Bimbilla
16^th January, 1990
THE P.N.D.C. REGIONAL SECRETARY,
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATION,
TAMALE
NOMINATION OF A QUALIFIED CANDIDATE FOR NAKPA SKIN
We the under listed chiefs of the Gbumayili gate wish to put this letter to your office. The decisions that follows below is taken in the interest of the District, Region and the nation at large.

At a family gathering it was unanimously agreed that the Kariga-Naa Nantogma Haruna or the Lepuhi-Naa Azumah Abudulai who are the only surviving sons of Bimbilla Nanima, and thus father of the gbumayili should be made the Nakpa Naa

Any person in the family call these people their father. We therefore cannot sit back to see a son made a lord over the father.

The fact cannot be denied that grate sons can be made chiefs, but then that is when the real sons have occupied senior positions and the grate son follow.

We are therefore trying to inform you before hand that if any person other than the mentioned is enskinned the next Nakpa Naa there shall be no peace.

This signed [28] and presented to you

Lepuhi Na Azumah Abdulai
Kariga Lana Nantogma Haruna
Bogu Na Nantogma Alhassan
Nabun Na Dramani Dawuni
Kakuhi Na Wumbei Abukari
Shibi Na Yakubu Wumbei
Beian Na Abdulai Abu
Yasiri Na Wumbei Mumuni

We are strongly against the enskinment of any person beside the two mentioned chiefs. And this to pre-inform you that we are protecting violence in the district that is why we write.

Your quickest action is highly anticipated.
Cc: THE REGISTRAR
N.R.H.C.
THE PRESIDENT
NANUMBA TRADITIONAL COUNCIL
THE P.N.D.C DISTRICT SECRETARY
BIMBILLA

[1] Dr. Danaa Nantogmah is a Political Economist and Development Consultant, a Lecturer at the Faculty of Banking and Finance, University of Professional Studies, Accra and an Adjunct Professor at Bangism Technology University.

[2] Judgment-Judicial Committee of the Northern Regional House of Chiefs, 2012, pp.25-48

[3] Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs, 2014, PP.45-46

[4] http://ultimatefmonline.com/2017/10/09/new-ya-naa-will-1st-years-crowning-achievement-akufo-addo/

[5] http://www.dagbon.net/history.php
[6] National House of Chiefs (2012) Judicial Committee, pp.17-18

[7] The others eight (8) are Juo-Naa, Langiri-Naa, Gambugu-Naa, Chichagi-Naa, Jillo-Naa, Dibsi-Naa, Wulensi-Naa and Juali-Naa

[8] Gbungmayili Chiefs Petition ‘on Nomination of a Qualified Candidate for Nakpa Skin’ thump printed signed by Lepuhi Na Azumah Abdulai, Kariga Lana Nantogma Haruna, Bogu Na Nantogma Alhassan, Nabun Na Dramani Dawuni, Kakuhi Naa Wumbei Abukari, Shibi Naa Yakubu Wumbei, Bong Na Abdulai Abu and Taziri Na Wumbei Mumuni. (Nanumba Traditional Council, January 1990)

[9] Appendix VI: Petition by Gbugmayili Chiefs dated 16^th January, 1990

[10] Judgment-Judicial Committee of the Northern Regional House of Chiefs, 2012, p.33

[11] Dr. Mohammed Ibn Chambas, is a maternal grandson of the late Bimbilla Na Abarika Attah.

[12] Danaa Nantogmah (2017) Press Conference on the Bimbilla Skin Affairs, 15^th February, 2017

[13] Bimbilla Naa Shero, son of Naa Gbugma
[14] Yakubu Nantogma, Attah Nantogma, Alhassan Nantogma, Ziblim Nantogmah, Nantogma Adam, Nantogmah Sumani, Salifu Attah Nantogmah, Mohammed Attah Nantogmah, Attah Amidu, Abdulai Attah Nantogmah, Abdul-Rahaman Abarika Abukari Yakubu and Abdul-Rahman Mahama

[15] National House of Chiefs (2014) Judicial Committee of the National House of Chiefs, pp.75-78

[16] Dakpam Naa Dadinke, son of Nabiyon Adama, son of Dakpam Naa Bukali, son of Naa Peenkpa

[17] Late Bimbilla Naa Abarika Attah, late Bimbilla Naa Nantogma Attah and the late Dakpam Naa Nantogma Attah

[18] Judgment-Judicial Committee of the Northern Regional House of Chiefs, 2012, p.33

[19] National House of Chiefs (2014) Judgment-Judicial Committee, National House of Chiefs, 2012, p.53A-55A

[20] National House of Chiefs (2014) Judgment-Judicial Committee, National House of Chiefs, 2012, p.56A-57A

[21] List of nine kingmakers of Nanum (Judicial Committee, Tamale, 20012, p20 )

[22] See pages 25-48
[23] (i)That the judgement of the Judicial Committee of the Northern Region House of Chiefs is a nullity; (ii) The Judicial Committee of the Northern Region House of Chiefs erred when it failed to appreciate that the customary law and usages relative to and pertaining to the enskinment of a Bimbilla Naa was peculiar to Nanum and not a general application; (iii) The Judicial Committee of the Northern Regional House of Chiefs erred when it held that the petitioners have no capacity to commence and maintain the action; (iv) The Judicial Committee of the Northern Region House of Chiefs erred when they held that the 1^st Petitioners/Appellant was ineligible to be enskinned as Bimbilla Naa; and (v) The Judicial Committee of the Northern Region House of Chiefs erred when it held that the enskinment of the 1^st Respondent/Respondent as Bimbilla Naa was proper and in accordance with Nanum customary practice relative* to the enskinment of Bimbilla.

[24] Appendix I: RCC Letter Requesting the Release of Nakpa Naa’s body, dated 10^th October, 2017

[25] Appendix III: Ho. Salifu Sa-eed, Regional Minister, RCC dated 12^th October, 20017

[26] Appendix IV: Appreciation Letter from Nakpa Naa Family, dated 12^th October, 2017

[27] Appendix V: Interview transcript of a Conversation between Hon. Dominic Nitiwul, Member of Parliament for Bimbilla and Nyelinborgu Naa Yakubu Andani Dasana, Regent of Bimbilla.

[28] All chief thumb printed ( see Appen Who is Nakpa Naa Salifu Dawuni

Feature Article: Bimbilla Chieftaincy Conflict: The Issues, the Facts and the Fictions?

by
Danaa Nantogmah [1]
Email: nant5@gmail.com
Introduction
The Nanun kingdom was founded by Naa Nmantambu in the thirteenth century and like many African societies with kingship succession issues, they arise from time to time. Succession to the Bimbilla Skin is patrilineal and requires direct blood relationship with past Bimbilla. In other words, to ascend to the skin, a prospective applicant must be a son of a Bimbilla Naa or a patrilineal grandson of a Bimbilla Naa. Conflicts over succession are not new but the traditional system has mechanisms for resolving such conflicts; and in modern times, they include the Traditional Council, Regional House of Chiefs and the National House of Chiefs, and the judicial system of the Republic of Ghana.