By Prince Ahenkorah
Member of Parliament for Zebilla East Constituency, Cletus Avoka, has detailed the ongoing conflict in Bawku by providing the root cause of this conflict.
The Member of Parliament said on Metro TV’s Good Morning Ghana show, that many commentators on this issue, do not know the background and proffer conclusions about the matter.
He further said that others also know and do not want to speak the truth. Cletus Avoka explained that the Bawku enclave is predominantly Kusasi.
He, therefore gave a brief background to the conflict in Bawku, asserting that the Mamprusi came to Bawku during the Trans-Saharan trade, when goods from the south used to come to Salaga.
He said goods like gunpowder, drinks, cola nuts, etc., passed through Salaga, and from Salaga to Nalerigu, then descended to Bawku, before moving to Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, among others. “That was the route of the Trans-Saharan trade,” he said.
He went on to say that, the Kusasi in Bawku used to seize the traders’ goods. On account of that, and because the traders settled in Nalerigu first, the Nayiri decided to establish a police post in Bawku to protect the traders. So he sent a few Mamprusi people to Bawku to settle there and maintain the trade route.
The Zebilla MP, further highlighted that “the story is that the Kusasi were there and harassing the traders; that is why the Nayiri decided to do that. So they came there but were not choosing over the Kusasi, who were the landowners and everything.
They only co-existed because the Kusasi were not part of this trading business. He indicated that this is what happened, and normally when a community comes to some place, they get their own community chief. “We have the Frafra community chief, Kusasi community chief, and the rest, but none of them can become the Ga Mantse, no matter how strong they are, because they have come to do business in Accra.”
He further said that the Akans are many in Accra and can even outnumber the Ga, but they cannot become Ga Mantse, indicating that this is the story of Bawku.
Cletus Avoka said, “When the Europeans came in 1900, they were going to rule the area through chiefs because they didn’t have the administrative personnel. So they settled first in the Nalerigu–Gambaga area with the Nayiri; that is where the white man sought self-defense, and from there, the Nayiri prince’s and interpreters escorted them to Bawku.”
Cletus Avoka narrated, “Naturally, when they got to Bawku, they were with those protecting the trade route at Bawku. The white man wanted one person controlling the whole area, but because we are acephalous, we didn’t have one person controlling the whole area.” So the white man just decided that since the Mamprusi understood chieftaincy and they wanted the chiefs to rule them, they would make the Mamprusi settlers in Bawku the Bawku Naba.
He affirmed that since then, the Kusasi have been struggling, caught up in the independence struggle as well. He indicated that in 1956, the Mamprusi Bawku Naba died, and in 1957, the Mamprusi left Bawku to go to Nalerigu. “They never went to the Northern Region to the Nayiri for enskinment to come and rule the Kusasi in Bawku.
The MP affirmed that the Kusasipeople said, now the country is struggling for independence for the white man to go, the Mamprusi should also go to Nalerigu; as they cannot be chief over them. So while the Mamprusi were in Nalerigu, they decided to get a chief. The Kusasi also decided to enskin their Tindana of Bawku to be their chief.
In June 1957, the Nayiri enskinned a Mamprusi chief of Bawku, and then the Kusasi enskinned their own Bawku Naba.
Cletus Avoka stated that the last colonial governor, Lord Listowel, set up a committee, indicating that he couldn’t recognize any of them without investigations.
Lord Listowel set up a committee of inquiry to ascertain the claims of the Kusasi and the Mamprusi regarding who were the landowners and supposed traditional rulers.
The committee was chaired by OpokuAsare, a lawyer from the Volta Region. The other two members were Nana Agyeman Badu I, the late Dormaahene, and one other at the time.
They went to Bawku to investigate and presented a report to the then colonial government, stating that in fact, the Mamprusi came there as settlers, while the Kusasi were doing everything. “That is why the Mamprusi is only a family, but the Kusasi is a whole tribe,” he said.
He again stated that it is administratively, politically, and developmentally wrong for the Nayiri, who has a family in Bawku, to impose the Mamprusi chief on the Kusasi, as that is untraditional.
The colonial governor accepted the report and issued a white paper recognizing the Kusasi man enskinned as the Bawku Naba and the head chief of the Kusasi area.
He affirmed that in 1932, the colonial district commissioner in Bawku brought all eighteen divisional chiefs from the Kusasi area, that is, Bawku West, Pusiga, Garu, among others, stating that they should make the Bawku Naba their leader so that the Europeans would be able to rule through him.
The MP further indicated that in 1932, the Bawku Naba was raised to the status of paramount chief so that the Europeans could rule through the Bawku Naba.
From 1932, the chief who was raised as Bawku Naba also became the head chief of the Kusasi area. “The Mamprusi were unhappy with the committee’s report and the governor’s directives, so they went to the high court. At that time, the high court was called the divisional court, not on the facts of the case, but on the fact that the colonial governor erred by saying the Bawku Naba is also the head of the Kusasi.
The high court ruled in their favor and quashed the committee’s report and the colonial governor’s white paper. Then the governor-general and the Kusasi appealed to the court of appeal, which at that time was the highest court in the land.
The MP further highlighted that the court of appeal, presided over by Sir ArkoKorsah, the then chief justice, ruled on the committee’s report, stating that Bawku is for the Kusasi; the Mamprusi have no right to be chiefs in Bawku.
He said that after the court of appeals decision, there was peace and harmony in Bawku until 1966, when the Liberation Council overthrew Kwame Nkrumah and, for no reason, decided that all the Kusasi in Bawku should be destooled, and they were destooled.
The Kusasi have been petitioning the government until the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council emerged. The Kusasi held a demonstration at Bawku when Rawlings came there, highlighting the need for social justice.
Avoka said, “Rawlings said they have come for a house cleaning exercise and didn’t come to do chieftaincy, so they should present their petition to Limann, who had already won the elections. Limann didn’t look at the matter because he had only two and a half years and left.”
He reiterated that Rawlings came back, and the Kusasi petitioned the PNDC, which passed PNDC Law 75. The PNDC Law 75 was passed in 1983, restoring the Kusasi Bawku Naba to the court of appeal decision. “That has been the status quo,” he said.
He went on to say that in 1996, the government, through V.C.R.A.C. Crabbe, decided that there were some laws that were no longer in use, and those laws were repealed.
He said that by law, if you benefit from a law and it is repealed, your benefit yields better because there are no laws for somebody to challenge.
So, in 2001, the Mamprusi came to President Kufuor, saying, “We are NPP and are with you.” He substantiated that the Bawku Mamprusi are traditionally UP, and the Kusasi are traditionally CPP, indicating that this is a fact.
He highlighted that the Mamprusi requested Kufuor to seize the chieftaincy for them. Kufuor told them that by the constitution, he could not enstool or destool a chief, and if they wanted, they should go to court.
Kufuor walked them through history and told them they could not become chief in Bawku.
They went to the Supreme Court in 2003 under President Kufuor, and Akufo-Addo’s chambers were the ones that filed the suit against the Bawku Naba. When the case was to be heard, the Mamprusi chiefs’ lawyers filed a notice of discontinuance at the Supreme Court.
They were rather asking for a declaration that PNDC Law 75 be declared null and void, as well as a declaration that only a Mamprusi chief can be Bawku Naba and not a Kusasi.
Avoka further stated that when the Mamprusi lawyers read the Bawku Naba’s defense, they realized that they had no case because they discovered that PNDC Law 75 wouldn’t allow them to challenge and be successful, and further discovered that under the constitution, one cannot become a chief of a certain area if they are not from that place.
He further highlighted recent developments that have heightened the conflict in Bawku, stating that in 2021, rituals were performed for a Mamprusi chief who died in 1981, and the Kusasi protested against it, but the government said nothing, even providing security to protect them.
He further stated, “In February 2023, they enskinned a Mamprusi man as Bawku Naba under the protection of security guards. The government came out to say that the enskinment is illegal.” So the state went to the high court for an arrest warrant to arrest both the Nayiri and the person he enskinned in Bawku.
The MP said when they protested in the Northern Region that they couldn’t arrest their paramountcy, they dropped the case against the Nayiri but maintained the arrest warrant on this fugitive. Then the case came to appeal in Kumasi, where they quashed the warrant, stating it should have been the district court to issue the warrant and not the high court, and therefore, they quashed it.
The MP affirmed this as the background of the Bawku brouhaha and stated that the fugitive has gone back to Bawku; “that is why we are seeing bloodshed there”. “What is happening in Bawku is criminality and abuse of power,” he said
