05/09/2021
History About
Kenneth Kitinkawa
Writes.
THE HISTORICAL CLAIMS AND THE POLITICS OF MISINFORMATION ABOUT KONKOMBAS IN GHANA.
The relationship between chieftaincy, land ownership and the issues of inter-ethnic exclusion present another labyrinth of causes and events that have underscored all the ethnic wars in northern Ghana especially among my tribe (konkombas) and others. Traditionally, ethnic claims to land in northern Ghana is established through three main sources:
1. Prior settlement โ All the ethnic groups in northern Ghana base their claim of origin, indigeneity and ownership of land on the principle of prior settlement. Under this procedure, any group that is first to move into an unclaimed space assumed the right of ownership of said land.
2. Conquest: - in many cases, the right to land was also acquired through military conquest. In this case, a military superior group of latecomers might fight and conquer the prior settlers and thereby annex the right of ownership of such lands. In such cases conquest seem to set a baseline in cultural time for indigenousness. The incoming conquerors usually attain a higher status position from that point on which means that earlier inhabitants, or more indigenous ones have lower status.
But the degree to which acquisition by conquest can be held to be a permanent and irrevocable one depends to a large extent on the ability of the conquerors to assert and maintain their authority over the conquered. This raises the question of balance of power between the conquerors and the conquered and a relevant factor in the relationship between us the Konkombas and our brothers (Dagombas) as to who is an alien in the northern Ghana. I am not trying to play tribal card here but I think time has come for our people especially Konkomba students get to know our hidden history and understand the problems we as a people are facing today and think about resolving these problems in going forward.
3 Thirdly claim is freehold arrangement: it was also common for the owners of a piece of land (first settlers) to give portion of it to family members or even unrelated new arrivals for agricultural and other related economic purposes. In such cases, the recipient became the new owner of the land and had the right to pass it on to other people by donation. This rule becomes important in other interethnic relationship such as the one between us Konkombas and the Nanumbas for instance.
These rules of land acquisition in northern Ghana are at the centre of the land related disputes among our people (Konkombas) and other tribes especially the Dagombas in the region. Under rule 1, the oral histories of both the Konkombas and the Dagombas accept that Konkombas were living in Yendi before the Dagombas moved in. this story is clearly retold in the Dagomba drum history, which is the official Dagbon account of their movement in to the area. This movement came about when the Gonjas drove the Dagombas out their base in a town called Dabari near Kumbungu in the west and pushed them into Charle which is known today as Yendi. This history is strongly recorded and corroborated by many historians in their work about Konkomba people in northern Ghana. This account is believed to have taken place in seventeenth century when the Dagbon capital was moved to the present day Yendi.
Infact Froelich (1954:33) quoting Tamakloe (1931) states that โin order to escape the threat of Gonjas, Na Luro in 1554-1570 constructed a new capital at Yendi in Konkomba territory at a place called Tchare, and expelled the Konkombas who were there.โ Despite these documented acknowledgement of the sequence of settlements, contemporary some people in this country have advance the argument that the Konkombas are aliens who migrated into Ghana from Togo and therefore do not have right to any land in Ghana. This statement was made by Hon. B. A Fusieni in his contribution to parliamentary debate in the floor of the house concerning the 1994-95 Konkomba Nanumba war.
Several writers picked up and gave legitimacy to that argument in their descriptions of the causes of the Konkomba- Dagomba conflicts in general and most of the conflicts involving Konkombas and other tribes in the region. For instance Abayie Boaten (1999) wrote in his book and attributes the cause of 1994 war to the fact that the Konkombas are settlers, migrants or aliens who are not playing by the rules of accepting the authority of their hosts- the Dagombas. Horowitz (2001:413) repeated that same view and I quote โKonkomba, originally migrants from Togo are landless, labors who work in a clientage relationship contributing crops and services to their Nanumba, Gonja and Dagomba hosts. Controlled by their hostsโ traditional authorities, Konkomba began to demand their own chieftaincy.โ Some have also made it look like in their books as if Konkombas were criminals and hostile to the German colonial authority in Togo and any time they committed a crime they then run to take refuge in Gold Coast. By the rule of land acquisition laid out above, had Konkombas the secondary arrivals on the land, why was it necessary for the Dagombas to fight and conquer them, since rule 1 says that the land ownership is given to the first tribe to have settled on the land. The foregoing accounts make it hard to sustain the argument that the Konkombas migrated into the eastern part of the northern region after arrival of Dagombas. The question that remains unanswered is why no one including the state, to intervened to mediate the resolution of the disagreements base on the evidence available. It is amazing to note that some writers of our modern day history have not realized that from 1899 to 1919, most of the eastern part of the current northern region including Yendi the seat of the paramount chief of Dagbon as well as Saboba- Chereponi occupied by the Konkombas and other groups were part of Togoland and under German rule. Technically, therefore more than half of what is now known today as Dagombaland was originally part of the Togo when that country was created. We all know when that portion of land became part of Ghana in 1956 prior to independence in 1957. If we were to say because of that as some people want us to believe Konkombas are from Togo why that same argument does not apply to other tribes like the Ewes, Nzemas mosi and mos. It is because those intellectuals do not know of these? Or is it because they are just bias towards Konkomba tribe? Is it not more sudden when people of the North are being introduced in special occasions either by politicians or traditional leaders in this country they totally ignore Konkombas who are the second largest ethnic group as part of the people of the North. I was walking one day in the city of Accra and saw in the daily guide newspaper headline boldly written Konkombas fighting over chieftaincy title. This headline prompted me to read the story and when I read the story into details, I realized that it was not Konkombas but rather two Chorkosi clans around Chereponi and has nothing to do with Konkombas at all but the newspaper reporter put the headline as Konkombas why? Is it because the reporter is a Dagomba? The discrimination in this country against Konkombas must stop.
Was it also deliberately put in the provision of article 274 of 1992 constitution which gives the regional house of chiefโs absolute control over chieftaincy affairs in the region of origin. By doing so Konkombas never get a paramount chief in the region because to get the paramount chief, the regional house of chiefs made up of the Dagomba chiefs will have to approve that request which the Dagombas consistently denied the Konkombas. For instance, the refusal of Ya-Na in 1993 to recommend the creation of a paramountcy for the Konkombas was perceived as an attempt to perpetuate the subjugation of the Konkombas to the Dagombas. The Volta region is about a quarter of the size of the northern region and yet it has 20 paramount chiefs and 20 traditional councils. Similarly, Ashanti region where they speak the same language and have almost the same culture there are over 30 paramountcies apart from the Asanteman council. In the case of northern region there are only 5 paramountcies given to the five tribes namely Dagombas, Mamprusis, Gonjas, Nanumbas and the Mos. Meanwhile Konkombas are the second largest tribe in the region according to statistics. Is this a deliberate attempt to deny the Konkombas from their traditional independence? I need someone to answer this question. This is where I think as intellectuals or people who believe in the course of Konkombas and other interest groups should start thinking to get solutions to our traditional independence in Ghana. When this is done, the recognition of Konkomba culture and festivals will emerge. One would have expected our MPs in parliament to have proposed to amendment of this aspect of the constitution (article 274) when the opportunity came during the constitutional amendment commission. But this opportunity is still not lost yet and that is why I am using this platform to launch this revolution. The change must come to Konkombaland now. We must reclaim our birth right but not through fighting rather through intellectual or academic one. I am calling on members of KONSU and KOYA to meet and see the way forward. God bless Nkpakpalndo and bless all those who stood for the truth in this country.
By Kenneth Kitinkawa โ a citizen of Ghana.
