Re: Bawku Conflict: Truth Must Be Told (Final part)

They blatantly refused to abide by these rulings and through their politicians were able to get PNDCL 75 promulgated in their favor. PNDCL 75 purported to have deskinned the Bawku Naaba who passed away as the gazetted chief with a High Court and National House of Chiefs ruling in his favor whilst claiming to have enskinned a dead man who died a commoner after pronounced as such by the National House of Chiefs.

PNDCL 75 was so a bad law to the extent that the 1984 Committee to Investigate the Bawku Lands Dispute found that it was the primary cause of the violent nature of the conflict hence should be repealed. It was finally repealed in 1996 by Act 516.


Rev Azumah claimed under this heading that the Mamprusis realized their case had no legal merit and decided to withdraw the case at the Supreme Court. His claim is very disingenuous and explains why their people do not know the truth about the matter.

In simple terms, the Mamprusis were contesting the constitutionality of PNDCL 75 described above; the law which was described by the 1984 Committee to Investigate the Bawku Lands Dispute as the cause of the violent conflcit in Bawku and hence should be repealed.

After filing the case in 2003, the Mamprusis realized the law had already been repealed in 1996. Thus, every Ghanaian would know that it was not necessary to continue a case against a law that was repealed.

This was the reason why the Mamprusis applied to discontinue the case to which the court granted without liberty to reapply specifically on PNDCL 75 because it was already a repealed law and article 270 and 277 because they were matters pertaining to chieftaincy of which the Supreme Court had no original jurisdiction to arbitrate.

This is the simple matter which Rev Azumah and his likes have consistently misrepresented with fallacious statements that the Supreme Court affirmed Kusasis as owners of Bawku.

Finally, even though the relevant issues raised by Rev Azumah in his articles have been sufficiently addressed, I wish to conclude by responding to some outright misrepresentations raised in part 2 of his piece.

This will leave a long lasting impression on the minds of the reader as to how Rev Azumah, who even though claims to be an academic and reverend minister, is very disingenuous and dishonest with the Bawku issue.

Rev Azumah tried to dispute the fact that politically, Mamprusis are aligned to the NPP/UP tradition whilst Kusasis are aligned to the CPP/NDC tradition. The fact that Mamprusis are aligned politically to the NPP/UP tradition has never been in doubt.

At the emergence of party politics in the 1950s, the Nayiri was the patron of the Northern People’s Party which entered into an alliance with the National Liberation Movement. These two parties are the origin to which the United Party and subsequently New Patriotic Party were formed.

Furthermore, at the time of the alliance between the Northern People’s Party and the National Liberation Movement, NaaSaaWuniBugri was the 12th Bawku Naaba and he was Mamprusi. He was a very strong member of the alliance and the Asantehene who was the patron of NLM recognized this by sending a powerful delegation to Bawku.

Also, ImoroSalifu, Adam Amandi, IdanaAsigri, Sandow Gumah and several other stalwarts of the NPP/UP/NPP tradition are Mamprusi princes from the Bawku area. So what is Rev Azumah fighting against? But that is very typical of him and his likes. They spend all their energy trying to dispute facts whilst at the same time propagating falsehoods.

Also, it is not true that Binduri is “pure” Kusasi and that their Member of Parliament is “pure” Kusasi as Rev Azumah claims. Binduri is a pure Mamprusi canton and this fact is recorded in all historical books. The usurpation of the Binduri skin from its original Mamprusi owners does not make it Kusasi. The MP for Binduri is originally a Bissa by tribe and so if he thinks his identity can be changed to a Kusasi for political gains then that is his own matter.

Rev Azumah further falsely claims that all the 6 administrative districts in the Bawku area (Bawku, Garu, Zebilla, Binduri, Pusiga, Tempane) are “pure” Kusasis and that is why they want to name the traditional area Kusaug.

We have already established in Part 1 of this article how Bawku is purely Mamprusi and how Pusiga the ancestral home has always been under the Nayiri hence cannot be Kusasi territory.

Binduri was also founded by Mamprusis and this is clearly captured in historical sources. Garu which was formed out of Kugri is purely a Mossi division. In fact the Kusasis themselves acknowledged this fact in a letter to the Government in 1966. Zebilla even though has been populated by most Kusasis due to migrations from their ancestral home in Burkina Faso was founded by Apotuba and Abiengo who are Talensi in origin.

This is clearly captured in historical records and re-echoed by Syme in his book. And the Talensi roots of Apotuba and Abiengo was further traced to a Mamprusiorgin. Tempane district is originally populated by Mamprusis, Nabdams and Bimobas.

This is the reality but in their unending quest to justify their usurpation and claim of majority, Rev Azumah and his likes jettison the facts and propagate misconceptions. Also, his claim about Kusasis being tendanas and hence owners of the land shows how he is deliberately twisting the customs and traditions of the Bawku area as well as that of the entire Northern Ghana. Tendanas are earth priests and not owners of the land. This is common knowledge.

Secondly, the number one shrine in the Bawku area is the Gbewaa shrine. Instead of saying that Mamprusis do not pacify the shrines, he should ask himself why the tendanas are pacifying Gbewaa who is the founder of the Mole Dagbani Kingdom instead of the founder of Kusasis since their leader AninchemaAbugrago falsely claims Gbewaa came and met them (Kusasis) in Pusiga?

He should also ask himself why the tendanas he claims are Kusasis will swear by Tosugu (father of Mamprusis) and mention his name first before pacifying the shrines in the Bawku area? This is simply because they are acknowledging the fact that the land belongs to Tosugu and his father NaaGbewaa and that they the tendanas are only earth priests.

By this, I will entreat Rev Azumah to preach peace as a reverend minister, show fidelity to the facts as an academic and above all know that the truth about Bawku can never be buried with their carefully calculated misrepresentations. He should know that some Ghanaians who for several years have been misled by their misrepresentations now know the truth and no amount of his twists and turns in the name of “telling the truth” can mislead them.

Show More
Back to top button