Your excellency,
I received the attached letter from a distinguished member of a fraternity and feel, the contents invites your careful consideration, particularly in the light of a speech in which you appear to elevate those who were, at best, peripheral to the final push for independence in a revisionist narrative that sought to diminish Dr Kwame Nkrumah’s singular and supreme contribution to the liberation and founding of our motherland. With the knowledge of your professional background as a distinguished barrister, I am cautiously optimistic you can elevate the sheer force of the evidence above propaganda.
This letter in question is from no other than your late uncle, J.B. Danquah to J.A. Obdam, dated 10th October 1951, indicating not only the inordinate actions of JB Danquah and the UGCC against Dr. Nkrumah’s quest for independence but revealing a trenchant opposition to Kwame Nkrumah’s strategic pursuit of self-governance for the Gold Coast.
You will note your uncle’s correspondence reflects a concerted effort by some members of the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC) to forestall and dismantle Nkrumah’s momentum toward immediate independence and nation-building. This opposition, articulated through Danquah’s missive, underscores a complex political rivalry rooted in divergent visions for our country’s future.
Your uncle’s invocation of “Nkrumah and his tricks” and the notion of Nkrumah as a destabilizing force to His Majesty’s Government highlights a palpable disdain for Nkrumah’s radical approach.
By characterizing Nkrumah’s ultimatum for “SELF-GOVERNMENT NOW” as an invitation to criminal conspiracy against law and order, your uncle positions himself and his allies within the UGCC as defenders of constitutional gradualism over immediate, radical change.
But I put it to you, that this stance was merely, and of course can be interpreted as a political maneuver to maintain colonial structures and hold our beloved nation under European servitude under the guise of gradual reform, which inadvertently aligned with colonial interests against the emergent nationalist fervor championed by Dr. Nkrumah.
The letter mentions the UGCC’s rejection of Nkrumah’s “challenge” at a meeting, deeming it a threat to stability.
This rejection does not only underscore the ideological chasm between the UGCC’s conservative pragmatism and Nkrumah’s radical nationalism, but betrays your uncle’s characteristic insular minded self-interests, compared with, as l will later demonstrate, Dr Nkrumah’s selfless and unblemished quest for the liberation of our people.
The UGCC, with its leadership drawn from the educated elite and traditional hierarchies, clearly appeared reticent to disrupt the colonial status quo abruptly. In contrast, Nkrumah, with his grassroots mobilization through the Convention People’s Party (CPP), galvanized mass support for immediate independence, thereby threatening the UGCC’s political influence.
The other members of the so-called “Big Six” – Ebenezer Ako-Adjei, Edward Akufo-Addo, William Ofori-Atta, Emmanuel Obetsebi-Lamptey, – are often heralded as the founding fathers of Ghana.
However, their collective historical significance is worth a careful scrutiny. While clearly, the UGCC’s leadership was pivotal in the early resistance against colonial rule, you will note, their inability to connect with the broader populace and their obstructive tendencies cloaked as conservative tactics ultimately limited their impact.
Dr Nkrumah’s subsequent imprisonment, following the 1948 riots, only bolstered his popularity and underscored the ineffectiveness of the UGCC’s strategies. You would have also noted that Dr. Nkrumah’s release from prison in 1951 marked a turning point in the independence movement.
His election as Leader of Government Business and later as Prime Minister signified an unquestionable globally recognized dawn of a new era. The subsequent constitutional changes and eventual declaration of independence on March 6, 1957, were a direct result of Dr. Nkrumah’s leadership and the CPP’s grassroots mobilization, and noting to do with your uncle and many of his disgruntled tribal faction, who Dr Nkrumah himself rightfully referred to as “ traitors,” a sentiment echoed by many respectable historians who argue that their actions during the struggle were more obstructive than contributory.
You would have also noted that Dr Nkrumah’s vision extended beyond political independence; he sought to transform Ghana into a beacon of Pan-Africanism and economic self-sufficiency, encapsulated in his famous dictum, “Seek ye first the political kingdom, and all else shall be added unto you.”
This was in stark contrast to the inward looking, tribal and nationalist politics sentiments exemplified by your uncle and compatriots in the UGCC.
Again, l put it to you history proved Dr Nkrumah right in his supremely intelligent strategy of including the whole of Africa and indeed our brothers and sisters in the diaspora as important stakeholders in Ghana’s liberation and future.
I have often wondered if it has ever occurred to you to imagine what your father and uncle would have thought about some of your government policies like the “Year of Return” agenda given their insular outspoken critique of Dr Nkrumah’s impassioned Pan-Africanist philosophy.
On the force of the factual basis for this argument alone, you can understand why the vast majority of our people consider efforts by the decendants of the Akyem Abuakwa political dynasty, including, indeed yourself
in the elevation of your father and uncles, to be an ridiculously underrated attempt to rewrite history. I take the liberty to share the wise words of Chinua Achebe , reflecting on the importance of integrity and steadfastness in leadership: “One of the truest tests of integrity is its blunt refusal to be compromised.”
May l also share the immortal wisdom of Marcus Garvey: “A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots.” (Marcus Garvey, Philosophy and Opinions of Marcus Garvey).
The designation of Nkrumah as the primary founding father of Ghana, in contrast, is supported by his undeniable role in mobilizing mass support for independence and in negotiating Ghana’s status as the first Sub-Saharan African country to gain independence from colonial rule.
Nkrumah’s strategies, leadership style, and vision for an independent Ghana, again starkly contrasted with the obstructive, self-serving conservative methods preferred by Danquah and his contemporaries.
From a legal and political perspective, the legitimacy of Nkrumah’s leadership was cemented through electoral successes and his subsequent actions as the leader of an independent Ghana.
His policies and the institutional frameworks established under his governance laid foundational structures for the new nation-state. The legal recognition of Nkrumah’s government and the broad support he garnered from the Ghanaian populace further solidify his status as the principal architect of modern Ghana.
The efforts of the other members of the so-called “Big Six,” including Danquah, who are wrongly lauded as Ghana, was marginal indeed compared to Nkrumah’s pivotal contributions. Their elevation to prominence, perhaps is, and should remain a whim of the Akyem Abuakwa elites.
This historical revisionism fails woefully to dilute Dr Nkrumah’s unparalleled legacy as the true architect of Ghana’s independence.
Further, your excellency will have noted other unassailable historical records attesting to Nkrumah’s indispensable role in the independence movement. His formation of the CPP and the subsequent Positive Action campaign in 1950 forced the colonial government to recognize the urgent demand for self-rule. The 1951 legislative elections, in which the CPP won a resounding victory, further underscored Nkrumah’s popularity and the legitimacy of his vision.
Nkrumah’s strategic imprisonment and subsequent release to lead the government as Prime Minister marked the beginning of the end for colonial rule, culminating in Ghana’s independence on 6th March 1957.
Unfortunately, Mr President, despite your beleaguered revisionist agenda, current affairs and political developments continue to reflect the enduring legacy of Osagyefo in Ghana’s founding narrative.
You can appreciate why the efforts to enshrine Danquah and others within the UGCC as co-equal founders with Nkrumah are often viewed by our people as politically motivated attempts to recast historical legacies.
Legal and political dialogue in contemporary Ghana frequently revisits these foundational narratives, with the overwhelming scholarly and public consensus largely affirming Nkrumah’s selflessness and central role in the independence struggle. As Gandhi opined “The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.”
On the commemoration of founders day, l hope you can find peace in the sacred words of Osagyefo “Freedom is not something that one people can bestow on another as a gift.
They claim it as their own and none can keep it from them” (Kwame Nkrumah, I Speak of Freedom: A Statement of African Ideology) and in the knowledge that, while J.B. Danquah and the UGCC played roles in the broader nationalist movement, their opposition to immediate self-rule and their conservative strategies paled in comparison to Nkrumah’s revolutionary leadership.
The true founding father of Ghana, by historical and popular acclaim, remains Dr. Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah, whose vision and leadership brought about the nation’s independence and set the stage for its post-colonial development.
Osagyefo Never Dies
Respectfully,
Dr. Mensa Beverly
