BAWKU CRISIS: RESPONSE TO ISSAH IMORO

Rev Azumah who has hurriedly scribbled a reply to my rejoinder reminds me of the wise saying that “If God wants good for you, He makes your adversary present with clear falsehoods and contrived arguments”. This is the state Rev Azumah finds himself in and it is obvious that he is bitter my rejoinder has collapsed the several years of falsehoods they have fed their youth and unsuspecting Ghanaians. All the issues he raised in his reply have been sufficiently answered in my two-part rejoinder to his initial article and he would have realized this if he was one of the "careful readers" I kept on addressing. But to make things further clearer to him, I say:

1. Is it not surprising that Rev Azumah whose entire 2 parts article in which he sought to authoritatively re-write history never quoted a single reference book on history (not to even talk of page numbers) is now drawing knives and daggers claiming I did not reference page numbers of the books I quoted from? How preposterous? And where is the page number of the recommendation he quoted from the report of the 1958 committee? Is that a new smart way of saving his face or it is just the case of a kettle calling the pot black? And the most surprising thing is how he knows these pages as will be shown shortly but selectively pretends he does not know but quotes from the same page.

2. The crux of the debate is WHO owns Bawku? And to establish that Bawku was founded by Mamprusis, I quoted Captain R S Rattray in his book " The Tribes of the Ashanti Hinterland" (specifically page 374 published by Oxford University Press since he is now asking for page numbers) where he states "Bawk (Bawku) are really MAMPRUSE, not Kusase, founded by the ruling class". This is the point of focus and Rev Azumah if indeed was truthful would have realized that this is a statement of fact that imposes a huge burden on him or his fellow Kusasis to disprove and his entire reply should have been on this rather than throwing innuendos at deprived women struggling to survive in Accra. However, he disingenuously ignored this fundamental quote and went to the same page to quote Rattray’s estimated Kusasi population. Funny? The worst part is that he pretended not to see on the same page that Rattray unambiguously classified Tempane, Garu, and Kugri as Nabt (Nabdam) which all make up the 400,000. So where does Rev Azumah stand? He was not able to disprove the fundamental fact that Bawku is Mampruse founded by the ruling class and in his unending quest to claim numbers, he ended up making the entire world know that Nabdams were classified as Kusasis just as I said in my rejoinder.

3. Rev Azumah who initially tried to use a lack of page numbers in my quote as an alibi surprisingly implicitly acknowledged the factual basis of my references when he said that J. K.G. Syme was a "sympathetic witness of the Mamprusis" because he worked with the "ruling class" as acting Commissioner and that his informant was Naa Yakubu Mamprusi who was brother to the Chief of Bawku at the time. Amazing, isn't it? More surprising is how he does not even appreciate why I used Syme’s work against him. It will interest the reader to know that the Kusasis have always used Syme’s book for their propaganda and that the 1958 Committee of Inquiry which is so dear to Rev Azumah grounded its findings on selected portions of Syme’s book. Then again, in the 1983 Committee of Eminent chiefs as well as the 1984 Committee to Investigate the Bawku Lands disputes, the Kusasis once again quoted copiously from the same Syme's book Rev Azumah is now struggling hard to discredit. So, what has changed? And why now claim Syme was sympathetic to Mamprusis only after now realizing the facts are against you? The Mamprusis did not rely on Syme's book in 1958 and subsequently because the history of the Mamprusi tradition from Pusiga to Gambaga and Nalerigu was preserved in oral and Arabic texts through griots and manuscripts like the Khetab. But the Kusasis found Syme's book sweet when they deliberately misrepresented portions for their parochial interests but now trying to run away from the book when it was shown that Syme’s work is against them and not for them. Their first attempt to run away from the book was in 1966 when Abugrago Azoka whose Syme's book was used as a usurpation tool of the Bawku skin for him barely 8 years earlier wrote to the NLC regime discrediting the same book with the same excuse that Rev Azumah is now giving. But even in their attempts to discredit the book, they still gleefully quote from the same book just as Rev Azuma did in his reply.

4. Rev Azumah says Syme described the area in Bawku as the Kusasi district and country of Kusasis. This misrepresentation was answered in my rejoinder but I believe the answer I will give below will be more enlightening for those misled by his tactics. First, Rev Azumah in quoting Syme should have been very honest in defining who Syme considered being a Kusasi. Syme defined Kusasis as: “ ….the name Kusasi is really very vague when referring to the people of Agolle (Bawku area) and not always correct even in the case of Toendema. For it is constantly used to include people who are NOT true Kusasis at all……actually a very large proportion of these people are descendants of unions between kusasis and imported slaves, male and females” (p 1). How did Rev Azumah miss this quote from the very first page? This is who Kusasis are from Syme. Maybe Rev Azumah might tell us which category he belongs to. Also, Syme in his letter to the Acting Chief Commissioner clearly stated that the true Kusasis are those in the Toende area and that people moving from the Bawku area to the Toende will often say they are going to Kusasi. 

Furthermore, to prove that the labeling of the entire Bawku area and several people as Kusasis was an erroneous move by the colonialists, Syme further states that “…even the chief of Timoni, who has been entered in the chief’s list for years as a Kusasis, is really of Kassena origin for his grandfather Hauya came from Janogo in the Kassena country and settled at Peregu in Teshi” (p2). This is the reality of the fraud that Rev Azumah takes pride in. And yet again, how did this quote right on page 2 skip him?

5. In connection with this, Rev Azumah's impression that I am denying the fact that the area was once called Kusasi district is disingenuous. In fact, I mentioned in my rejoinder and said it was a misnomer by the Colonialists and this happened in 1929. However, as the evidence above shows, this is not something Rev Azumah should be proud of. It was a pure fraud that robbed people of their true identities culminating in this crisis. Furthermore, as I indicated in my rejoinder, the colonialists in their 1931 Annual Report which were authored by the same DC Syme, stated 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 (Bawku area) is regarded as DISTINCTLY MAMPRUSI, whilst the country west of the volta and known as Toende is considered to be KUSASI PROPER”.

Thus, this settles the debate and how an academic like Rev Azumah should be the one delving into details and explaining them to innocent youth rather than the one pushing and propagating misnomers is perplexing. There is more to quote on this from Syme but these will suffice for the sake of brevity.

6. As a follow-up and about using the name of districts as evidence of ownership, is Rev Azumah genuinely ignorant, or is pretending to be ignorant that until Ghana gained Independence, the entire Bawku area, Bolga area, and present-day North-East Region were all part of the Mamprusi District? So why does he not use the fact that the Bawku area was under a district called the Mamprusi district to make the case that Bawku is under Mamprugu? And what will he say if we also insist on a change of the Bawku District to the Mamprusi District as it was known before Ghana gained independence? The name Bawku remains the best identity for the district and Rev Azumah knows that long before the Colonialists came, Mamprusis founded the town and named it Bawku which means a valley in Mampruli. This nomenclature is clearly mentioned by Syme in his book. This is the reason why Rev Azumah is very unhappy with the name of the district and insists on changing the name. 

7. Rev Azumah does not deny the fact that Garu and Kugri were founded by Mossis and that the founders of Zebilla Apotuba and Abiengo are Talensi because he knows the records will expose him. He says why is it that those tribes are not fighting for their chieftaincy? He does not know it is the descendants, for example in the case of Kugri, who are the princes and that they do not deny their origin. In fact, the Kusasis through Abugrago Azoka in a letter to the NLC Government in 1966 stated that the Chief of Kugri in the 1895 conflict was a Mossi. And attempts to say Kusasis fought the war as said by Syme should be understood in the context of who the Kusasi is as defined by the author. Furthermore, Kugri was under Binduri whose chief was a Mamprusi, and was directly under the Nayiri. In fact, they sent emissaries to plead with the Nayiri before the conflict as recorded and this is evidence that they did acknowledge he was their overlord. 

8. Rev Azumah makes an emphatic statement that there is NO Mamprusi in Bawku and in Nalerigu who does not have Kusasi blood. Readers do not expect an academic to make such general statements without proof so I will not waste my time. He further claims again that there is NO Mamprusi who is currently a chief in the Bawku area. He does not know there are indeed Mamprusis but I will excuse him for that. I will not mention them here for good reasons.

9. Rev Azumah who a few days ago took on Hon Mohammed Muntala (MP Tamale Central) for excluding Kusasis from the descendants of Naa Gbewaa has now joined the “prestigious” club of Cletus Avoka by describing Naa Gbewaa as a myth simply because according to him, Mamprusi territorial claim over Bawku is based on Naa Gbewaa. He further describes Naa Gbewaa as “their” (Mamprusis) ancestor. I am sure the rest of Naa Gbewaa’s descendants have read the statements of Rev Azumah and that is enough for me, just to add that the second in command to their Aninchema Abugrago (Ibrahim Akpaka) fully believe in the history of Naa Gbewaa and will not take it lightly with him. Also, why then did Rev Azumah take pride in his previous posts that Kusasi tendanas are those worshipping the shrine of Naa Gbewaa if he says he is a myth?

10. Rev Azumah claims Mamprusis who founded Bawku were only mercenaries protecting the trade route. I will leave Rev Azumah with a quote from Syme which I believe if indeed he is a true Kusasi (or even adopted as described by Syme), he will see how ungrateful it is to fight Mamprusis today. Syme says on page 2 in describing the authority of the Mamprusis in the Bawku area and how the Kusasis benefited. He says “…The caravan owning them used to proceed to Bawku, where Kusasis LIVING UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE MAMPRUSI CHIEF OF BAWKU used to come in and buy many of the slaves for cattle and cowries”. Yes, that is how Mamprusis provided safety and security for Kusasis at a time when it was very hostile to survive. All this was because the Kusasis migrated to settle in Mamprusi territory seeking protection and safety. Today, people like Rev Azumah who claim to be Kusasi intellectuals seek to rewrite history and incite innocent youth whose ancestors migrated to Bawku to enjoy the protection of Mamprusis against the descendants of Mamprusis who provided them safety. He claims Kusasis never lived under Mamprusi rule just to deceive innocent youth. Such a world.

11. Rev Azumah claims Syme added what he called “a not so veiled threat” that the Bakwu Naba be selected in the 1931 conference otherwise the government will relocate the station away from Bawku. This is absolutely false and there is no surprise that someone who claims to quote page numbers will miss to quote this important assertion. On the contrary, the report of the 1931 conference clearly captured that the district commissioner induced members of the conference to make 3 chiefs (Sinnebaga, Binduri, and Kusanaba) to accept the position of head chief but they all refused and unanimously voted for the Bawku Naaba in what Syme described as the “wildest scenes of enthusiasm”. This is what is captured in the report. And the fact that the other cantons lost their independence was in relation to not being directly under the Nayiri but now under a canton like Bawku which was still under the Nayiri. This fact is clearly explained in the same quoted text by Rev AZumah where Syme states that the other chiefs “realize that he (the chief of Bawku) is the link between them and the Na of Mamprusi and that he is their tribal chief and that the Na has given him the authority to provide them with certain regalia which is the symbol of Mamprusi chieftaincy” This is simple. So, if they were independent of Bawku before 1931, they were still under the Nayiri who is the Kingmaker of the entire area. The same fact Rev Azumah and his likes have been denying. 

Finally, I will leave the reader to ponder over how low Rev Azumah, a pastor who should be preaching compassion, went in describing underprivileged young girls struggling to make ends meet in Accra and Kumasi. His language is very unfortunate and it is obvious that he does not know the magnitude of the Kayayei menace. Indeed, the menace of Kayayei is not limited to only Mamprusi girls but most girls from the North including Kusasis. Rev Azumah should be very worried at how young children particularly from his area in Zebilla are sold into slavery at cocoa farms in the south and Ivory Coast. As a reverend minister, he should rise above such a posture, remain committed to facts, and preach peace instead of violence, ethnocentrism, and stereotyping.

 

Thank you.

 

Written by:

Dr. Issah Imoro

Grandson of the 12th Bawku Naaba Naa Saa Wuni Bugri

(issahwuni@gmail.com)