Re: Bawku is still volatile — Mamprugu Youth Association res…
The Mamprugu Youth Association (MAYA) has seen in circulation the content of a press conference held on the 7th of November, 2024, by the Kusaug People’s Congress (KPC) led by Rev. Prof Azumah titled “Bawku remains volatile.”
This is a response to the KPC’s press conference. While we respect the right of every group to express their views, we are deeply concerned about the tone, content, and implications of the remarks made during that event.
The statement made by Rev. Professor Azumah wwasnot only unfounded, contradictory, and inconsistent but also dangerously inciting and divisive. Such rhetoric risks escalating tensions and undermining efforts toward peace and reconciliation in Bawku. It is particularly disheartening given Rev. Azumah’s esteemed position as a religious leader, someone who should be a symbol of unity and a proponent of peace.
As youth of Mamprugu, we believe that it is our duty to rise above provocation and work towards a peaceful resolution of the conflict. However, we ccan notremain silent when inflammatory narratives threaten to derail the progress made thus far.
We will , therefore, et the record straight, refute the inaccuracies presented during the Kusaug People’s Congress press conference, and most importantly, outline actionable recommendations that we believe will bring lasting peace to Bawku.
1. Contrary to claims by Rev Azumah that we, the Mamprusis, performed the funeral of a deposed chief, the facts show that the late Bawku Naaba Naa Tampuri Adam Zangbeo lived and died as a gazetted Bawku Naaba. He was enskinned in 1967 as Bawku Naaba , nd at the time of his demise in 1981, he was still the gazetted Bawku Naaba and once Vice President of the then Upper Regional House of Chiefs. Indeed, in 1980 , hortly before his demise, Naa Adam Zangbeo won a favorable jjudgmentat the Bolgatanga High Court restraining Abugrago Azoka from presenting himself as chief. In fact, even after his demise as Bawku Naaba, he won a favorable judgment at the National House of Chiefs in 1983. These very decisive cases and their dates never found mention in the press conference led by non-other than a clergyman. We therefore find the false claims by Rev. Azumah as a deliberate ploy to continuously mislead the public and his gullible innocent Kusasi youth to continue fighting a senseless war.
2. The declaration given by KPC that they will reject mediation and legal means of addressing their grievances should be condemned in no uncertain terms by every well-meaning Ghanaian. We wish to remind Rev. Azumah that in 1979, the gazetted chief for Bawku was Bawku Naaba Naa Adam Zangbeo. At that time, he was Bawku Naaba for 12 years , ut that did not stop the Kusasis from claiming to purportedly enskin a rival chief. However, we , he Mamprusis , id not reject adopting legal means of addressing our grievances , nd neither did we issue threats of violence. The facts show that we proceeded to the Bolgatanga High Court and successfully secured a restraining order against the Kusasis. This is the way of civility , hich seems to elude Rev Azumah and his KPC. Rev. Azumah and his KPC should know better and emulate the Mamprusis rather than spew vitriol and promote violence.
3. The KPC claims the Mamprusis have a fictitious list of 14 Bawku Naabas and dared us to show what he calls a single “corroboratory evidence” to back our claim.It is sad that Rev Azumah , ho quoted Syme’s book in the press conference , eliberately turned a blind eye to the detailed “corroboratory evidence” he rrequestedin the same book. Indeed, in the same book and on page 53, Syme (1932) said categorically that “The FIRST chief of Bawku was Ali, son of Na Atabia of Mamprusi…”. We emphasize FIRST and CHIEF OF BAWKU because of false claims by the Kusasis that the Mamprusis were community chiefs and not chiefs of Bawku. Syme further listed all the Bawku Naabas from Naa Ali Atabia to Naa Bugri Mamboda , ho was the chief at the time of writing his book. In the “corroboratory evidence” provided by Syme, one can see Naa Bugri was 10th Bawku Naaba. We have attached a copy of the lineage chart drawn by Syme on page 61 of his book as evidence. Now that we have provided the corroboratory evidence from the same source referenced by the KPC, may we also request Rev. Azumah to also provide us with the lineage of Animchema Abugrago just up to 4 ancestors and the corroboratory evidence as pproof This is a challenge we urge Ghanaians to urge him and his group to take seriously and provide us with nswers.
4. Claims by the KPC that the Mamprusis met people of Bawkzua and Tinsungu are not only palpable falsehoods but also misrepresentation of the events of the return of Naa Baako Mahama (6th Bawku Naaba) to Bawku after his father Naa Sateem Mahama Mahamudu was slain by Bissa insurgents. It is this event that depicts the “Naam Kugri” ritual described by Syme. The first thing that Rev. Azumah and his KPC should have asked themselves when they read the story is that, why should the people of Tinsungu come to the aid of the Mamprusis if the Mamprusis were total strangers and invaders? They only came out to assist and welcome Naa Baako Mahama because they knew he was the legitimate successor to his father , aa Sateem Mahama. In fact, Syme (p.10) in his book stated categorically that Bawku is Mampruli word which means hole or valley and that Bawku, Binduri, Tanga, Teshie, Worikambo and Sinnebaga were the 6 original Mamprusi towns. Bawku was formed initially as a Garrison to protect the trade route from Tenkudugu from the Bissa insurgents around Bitou and Mognori areas. This is a fact we are not ashamed to mention because it does not negate the fact that Bawku was founded by Mamprusis. In fact, we have always maintained that even our aancestorsNaa Gbewaa met Gurma and Bissa tribesmen closer to the ancestral home of Pusiga. Furthermore, one single corroboratory evidence that shows that Bawku was indeed fouded by Mamprusis is the words of Captain Rattray in his book “Tribes of the Ashanti Hinterland Vol 2” (1932) where he stated emphatically in pages 374 – 375 that “Bawk (Bawku) is REALLY Mampruse, NOT Kusase, Founded by the ruling class.” These 3 different emphases in one sentence leave no doubt at all in any truth-seeking mind that Bawku was founded by Mamprusis and is purely a Mamprusi town.
5. Claims by the Kusasis that they have 6 administrative districts is not only misleading but also a deliberate ploy they use to deceive unsuspecting Ghanaians and stakeholders that they are the majority. The “coroboratory evidence”, as shown by the two most relevant references Syme 1932 and Ratray 1932 , s that:
a) Bawku (Bawku municipality) was founded by Mamprusis as discussed above.
b) Binduri (Binduri district) was founded by Mamprusis with the first chief being Mamprusi (Syme, p64).
c) Garu (Garu district) is an offshoot of Kugri town , which was founded by Mossis under the rulership of the Mamprusi chief of Binduri. In fact, as of today, the chief of Garu and Kugri do not hide their Mossi identity.
d) Pusiga (Pusiga district) is the ancestral home of the Mole Dagbani Kingdom and was part of the jurisdiction of the Nayiri who inherited Naa Gbewaa.In fact, the evidence shows that the Nayiri for hundreds of years before the arrival of the Whiteman was the person enskinning the Chief of Pusiga (Tingurnaaba) to take care of Naa Gbewaa’s shrine. Pusiga is also home to large Bissa and Yanga populations.
e) Tempane (Tempane district) is occupied by the Nabdams (Syme p.65, Ratray p. 374).
f) Zebilla, which is largely occupied by Toende Kusasis now was originally founded by two Talensi brothers, putoba and Abiongo, from Dettoko (Syme p. 81).
So, with this factual background of the founding of all the 6 administrative districts, how can it be said Kusasis own the area and are the majority, if not propaganda? Isn’t it clear who is into scamming here?
6. It is interesting that KPC were much interested in the origin of Mamprusis, which has never been in doubt but silent about their very own kusasi origin. All the corroboratory evidence shows that the Kusasis migrated from Ayuiga, Biengo , andZawga in present-day Burkina Faso. They only migrated to the Bawku area simply because the Mamprusis had formed the town and secured it from the Bissa threats. Indeed, Syme (p.11) said the real Kusasis are found in the Toende area (Zebilla) and further said the Annual District Report for 1931-1932 that “During the past 12 months an interesting fact, hitherto unrecorded, has come to light, namely that among the people themselves the country East of the white volta and known as Agolle, is regarded as being DISTINCTLY MAMPRUSI, whilst the country west of the white volta, and known as Toende, is considered to be KUSASI PROPER”. Thus, per the evidence, the Bawku area is distinctly Mamprusi
7. The KPC falsely claims that the Mamprusis chiefs were only appointed as village chiefs by the British between 1905 and 1910. The evidence, s shown by Syme (1932) above, is that the first Chief of Bawku was Naa Ali, son of Naa Atabia, who reigned as King of Mamprugu in the 17th century. Thus, as aof1721, Naa Ali was the chief of Bawku. This was over 150 years before the British arrived in the northern territories in 1896 at the time of the 8th Bawku Naaba. So, the KPC propagated palpable falsehood. Furthermore, to prove their palpable falsehood, attached is a Gold Coast Chieftaincy list dating back to 1902 (not his false 1905) which lists the chief of Bawku at the time as Naa Mahama Mamboda (8th Bawku Naaba). The list also contains chiefs of Kusasi areas like Zebilla, Binaba, Tilli, etc , ll classified under Mamprugu. This is another piece of evidence that all the Kusasi areas were under the Nayiri of Mamprugu , even before the 1931 conference. It is interesting how the Kusasis have shifted their positions of when Mamprusis started ruling Bawku from 1932 to 1912 to 1905 each time we expose their fallacy. And for a man who walks around with the title Rev. to be the latest propagator of this falshood is dishonourable. Do not be surprised the next date you will hear from them is 1902.
8. The corroboratory evidence shows that in 1931 , when the head chief for the area was selected, the chief who represented Bawku and was selected was Naa Bugri Mamboda (10th Bawku Naaba). He was first enskinned as Bawku Naa in 1921 (Syme, p. 60). The evidence further shows that he was described as Bawku Naaba (chief of Bawku) as the other chiefs were described as Chief of Sinnebaga, Chief of Binduri and Chief of Binaba.The evidence also shows that, contrary to the lies by the KPC that the 17 Canton chiefs were “manipulated” in selecting Bawku Naaba Naa Bugri Mamboda, all the chiefs were rather happy and WILLINGLY chose Bawku Naa Bugri Mamboda even though the colonial administration (Annual District Report 1931-32) in their own words said they afforded all the inducement to chiefs of Sinnebaga, Binduri and Kusanaba to contest the position. Another official record described the event as “most amazing demonstration of enthusiasm” that exceeded their expectations. These records show how the Kusasis have drifted from their position that the British “imposed” Mamprusis on them, to another false claim that they were “manipulated” by the British. Inconsistent. Palpable falsehood. Lies. All in defense of a castle build on sand.
9. The instructive evidence that abound , however, is that Abugrago, father of Aninchema , as chosen as a chief by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah at a CPP rally in Bawku because Mamprusis did not support his CPP Government in 1958. This will prove the genesis of political meddling in the Bawku chieftaincy affairs. When this CPP-appointed chief died, and was rightly described as a “commoner” by no mean an institution than the Chieftaincy Tribunal of the National House of Chiefs, one would have thought that the unfortunate political usurping of the Bawku skin would finally be put to rest. But Kusasis in typical fashion made another political maneuvering where the man who died and was buried a commoner is suddenly recognized as chief posthumously through the enactment of PNDC Law 75. This law was solely designed for the purpose of making Aninchema a beneficiary of this political manoeuvre, another clear case of government interference on the Bawku skin. No wonder, his unconstitutional PNDL Law 75 was sneaked out of the statutes. If PNDC Law 75 is a spent law, what legal basis exists for Aninchema to continue to parade himself as Bawku Naba? How did kusasis manage to scam a whole nation into believing that they own Bawku and can even be chiefs of Bawku?
10. The Kusasi, being the only beneficiaries of political interference in the Bawku chieftaincy crisis as evidenced above, believe that because the Vice President is Mamprusi, then automatically he must be working in support of his kinsmen. Let it be on record that this Nana Addo-led administration, since the 4th Republic is the only one where the president himself along with his vice president and ministers openly declared their support and recognition for the Kusasi. What Mamprusis have consistently done is to call on this government and other stakeholders to stay neutral and not meddle. But we understand the stock in trade of the KPC. Play the tribal card by making claims of Dr. Bawumia’s involvement is purely intended to create political divisions and deflect from the core issues at hand. Rev. Azumah’s own admission to seeking and getting an audience with Dr. Bawumia on the Bawku issue speaks volumes of their coercive nature for continued political meddling.
11. It is instructive to note that the KPC in their attempt to incite Kusasis claim that they “do not share any common kinship, language, culture, traditions or ANCESTORS” with Mamprusis.We believe that this declaration should be an eye opener to the several people claiming to be Kusasis in the Bawku area who invoke Gbanwaa and Tosugu (Naa Gbewaa and his son Naa Tosugu – founder of the Mamprugu Kingdom). They should know that, according to Rev. Azumah and his KPC, they are NOT Kusasis because they share the same ancestry with Mamprusis. Also, they should be aware that anyone who invokes Naa Gbewaa and Naa Tosugu should never lift a finger or their hands to fight a Mamprusi because they are the same Mamprusis let alone invoke these two ancestors against Mamprusis. Is that possible? Thus, Rev. Azumah and his KPC should go elsewhere to find who their ancestors are and the lands of their ancestors and leave Bawku and its surrounding areas for the descendants of Naa Gbewaa and Tosugu.
12. Thus, from the above, it is clear that Mamprusis are not enskinned from a different land to rule a strange land. Calls for the removal of Naa Alhaji Seidu Abagre whose rights as a freeman were affirmed by the Court of Appeal are not only unfair but also, not a practical way of solving the problem. Naa Sheriga Alhaji Seidu Abagre was born and bred in Bawku, same for his father, his grandfather, all back up to the 17th century.
13. Calls by KPC that they have gained their independence are not only fake, divisive, and inciting but expose their double standards. Anyone who knows the Bawku area knows that towns like Kulungungu, Bador, and adjoining villages are purely Bissa towns. In the thinking of Rev. Azumah and his KPC, why should Kusasis seek to enskin chiefs for these purely Bissa towns? They should live their independence mantra by respecting the independence of the Bissas to also enskin their own chiefs and not to be enskinned by Kusasis. In the same way, why do they not grant independence to towns like Kpikpira and adjoining communities that are purely Bimobas to enskin their own chiefs? Furthermore, why are they fighting Mamprusis for Bawku, Binduri, Worikambo, Sinnebaga, Tanga, and Teshie? Are we not also Ghanaians with a right to self-preservation just as they carry on with their mantra of a right to self-determination?
In conclusion, we Mamprusis are very committed to any non-violent means that can bring lasting peace to the area. This includes the Kusasis going to court like we did in 1979 when they claimed to have enskinned a parallel chief. We are urging all stakeholders to advise the Kusasis to adopt non-violent means rather than attacking and killing innocent citizens. We also urge the government to, as a matter of urgency, provide security escorts along the Bolga – Bawku – Poulimakoum road, which is a major ECOWAS road. It is very disheartening that the government seems to have thrown their hands in despair and allowed bandits to terrorize users by killing innocent people.
Cc: All Media Houses
