This is what’s wrong with our system.
We grade corruption by the personality indulging in it. Here’s a leader of a revolution who shot people tied at the stakes for taking Ghc50,000 (old system). The Roger Fellis and the Utukas. Fast forward and this Rawlings became friends with a thief. This thief stole from his people. He shared the loot with like minds across Africa that are willing to do PR work for his image. Rawlings received a whooping Usd5 million. Ghanaians heard about it. The lawmakers house took the matter up. The ruling corrupt NDC Govt and party backed a corrupt persons denial. Investigative journalists like Bill Nyarko went to Nigerian villages to dig up the truth. The attack dogs of the corruption brigade were let loose. People backed off.
Fast forward again to twenty years time. Hell broke loose. A Nigerian dare devil came over with solid info on the thievery. Rawlings was confronted with solid intelligence work. He succumbed and struck a deal.
Rawlings finally told the world that Sanni Abacha indeed gave him the money, but not the Usd5 million Gozo was asked to deliver, but a mere Usd2 million. He further moronically told a suspicious public that as he had no bank account, he left the two million dollars on the office table and it became the office petty cash which every joke who enters the office uses until it dried up.
What a stupid and a palpable idiocy.
Recently a former Israeli Prime Minister who took a small campaign fund was jailed because of the principles they preach. That’s after so many years of leaving office. Go to another country called Brazil. Visit South Korea. They all have state imbued statutes that clearly spell out sanctions and penalties for getting into unholy alliances with corruption.
Ghana, instead of holding Corrupt Rawlings to account, after listening to his lame excuse, is rather offering him a platform to speak on morality, accountability, transparency, fidelity, incorruptibility and good governance.
What is Ghana telling its massive youthful population? That it pays to be corrupt? That the Ghana of today doesn’t care how you come into your wealth? That society will offer you a place at the high table irrespective of the means to your riches?
The things we practiced in secret are things that are being done in the open today. The lawlessness and disregard for authority is what we planted.
And we are going to reap its full benefits if we do not stop glorifying thievery and corruption.
The Rawlingses and all those corrupt personalities should be made to face the prescribed penalties today and our society will take a good cue from that.
Unless we are all so corrupt.
Yes, from ministers of religion, public servants, judiciary, police/army/revenue/customs, political thugs and thieves, to the lowest in the land, we are all thieves. We have no conscience. We lack morals.
This country will pay dearly for this treacherous lifestyle we’ve adopted after the sacrifice of the Great Osagyefo.
The distrust of our institutions is breeding the lawlessness. No one will be spared. The lynchings are but the precursor to a full blown failed state.
God Almighty save us.
THE 1956 TRANS-VOLTA TOGOLAND PLEBISCITE AND MATTERS ARISING
AUGUST 18, 2016 · PUBLIC
On 17 August 2016, my attention was drawn to a news article published in the Daily Graphic, which inter alia, mentioned a group known as The Homeland Study Group Foundation (HSGF) based in Ho in the Volta Region of Ghana “agitating for the restoration of so called Western Togoland as a state to declare independence for Western Togoland on 9 May 2017.” According to the leader of the group, “…. the Western Togoland were plebiscite citizens in Ghana and not until a declaration was made on 9 May 2017, the people will remain an appendix to the former Gold Coast (now Ghana). They also claimed that “…world historical documents had revealed that Western Togoland was a state and not a territory of Ghana.”
Fundamentally, HSGF claims that although residents of the Western Togoland voted in 1956 to become a union with the Gold Coast (now Ghana), the union has not been formally established by way of a unionized constitution to date. That is, Queen Elisabeth II did not incorporate Western (British) Togoland in the Act establishing the Gold Coast (now Ghana). Thus, they claim they are right in calling for a secession to form a new sovereign state.
However, do these arguments really stack up against the historical record? The purpose of this article is to analyse the recent calls by the HSGF in light of the existing historical narrative to address the following: (1) the history of Western Togoland (2) political associations in the Togoland (Unificationists vs Unionists) and (3) the plebiscite and matters arising.
2.History and Makeup of Western Togoland
Africa’s international boundaries were delimited and subsequently demarcated by European States following the 1884 Berlin Conference (Prescott, 1963; p1). The division of the former German colonies of Togoland, Kamerun (now Cameroun) and Tanganyika (Great Lakes Region) into British, French and Belgian Mandates after World War I was one of the most important boundary changes that took place.
Prescott (1963) notes that before the European intervention “the Ewes were politically divided into about 120 subtribes lying between the centralised military kingdoms of Abomey and Ashanti. During periods of war temporary alliances were formed amongst the Ewe groups, but these were dissolved in times of peace.” The Anglo-German boundary, which lay between Lomé and the Volta River divided Eweland into two protectorates namely British Gold Coast Colony and German Togoland. The British administered their mandate as an integral part of the Gold Coast Colony whereas the French kept theirs administratively separate from Dahomey (Benin) and Upper Volta (Burkina Faso). Both Togoland under the British protectorate and Togoland under the French protectorate were under supervision of the Trusteeship Council of the League of Nations (now the United Nations). The Ewe area in the British controlled territory was formally constituted into the Trans-Volta-Togoland region in 1952 to enable effective administration as a single group (Prescott, 1963; p5). The landmass of British Togoland stretches from Bawku East district in the Upper East region and borders the Volta River up to the Gulf of Guinea.
Bening (1983) notes that the original boundary between the British colony of the Gold Coast and protectorate of Togo included not only the Ewe of the Keta and Peki districts in territory but it also divided the Mamprusi, Dagomba and Gonja states as well. The division of Togoland exacerbated the so-called “Ewe Problem – that is to say Ewes, who hitherto saw themselves as a “nation state”, were politically divided into two administrative camps with different official languages. The movement for Ewe unification in southern Togoland was particularly inspired along socio-economic, social-political, and cultural factors. The so-called “Ewe problem” bedevilled the UN for a decade from 1946 to 1956 and was concerned with the objectives of nationalists who wanted not just “national home, but a homeland-state, with a flag, a leader, a national anthem, a capital, embassies abroad, representation at the United Nations, and an independent voice at Pan-African meetings” (Austin 1963: p141-142).
Interestingly, the records show that “there was no Ewe state in precolonial times, although there were several semi-autonomous Ewes-peaking communities along the coast and in the Togo hills.” Amenumey, however, asserts that what they wanted was “not an autonomous Ewe state but rather the grouping of the Ewe together within a larger unit of the two trust Territories and the Gold Coast’ (Amenumey 1989: p44-45). The Dagomba’s under the Northern Territories Territorial Council also supported the Ewe position that the partition had created problems for them to the extent that “the Ya Na could not exercise his full authority in Western Dagomba (Bening, 1983; p204)”
3.Political Associations in Togoland (Unificationists vs Unionists)
The 1950s saw a rise in Pan-tribal movements amongst groups that had hitherto been divided by colonial boundaries. They now saw political advantage and security in being united on one side of the boundary (Prescott, 1963; p3). For example, there were constant demands by some Ewes for unification either as a separate or to join Ghana or Togo Republic. Two key groups emerged Post World War II on the status of Togoland: the unificationists and the unionists. The unificationists held on to the idea of a pan-Ewe nation state encompassing both French and British Togoland whereas the unionists held on to the belief that their interests will be best served under the Crown. A popular claim of the unificationists against the unionists was that “far from being free, the Ewes will be dominated by other Gold Coast peoples if integration takes place” thus taking a similar position as the National Liberation Movement of Ashanti.
The proponents from the opposing camps of the debate were the Convention Peoples’ Party who were for integration with the Gold Coast (Unionists) and the Togoland Congress who were for unification of both French and English Togolands. The leader of the Togoland Congress was a man named George Antor who was a keen advocate for the unification not only of the Ewes but of both Togolands. It is reported that “… a deal was made between Antor and Olympio (from French Togoland) that unification of Togoland would come first with a promise to associate in some form with the Gold Coast so that a maximum number of Ewes could come together.”
However, with the advent of independence in the Gold Coast, “some of the Ewe leaders including Daniel Chapman and Gerald Awumah expressed the view that the best hope for the Ewe people lay in the integration of British Togoland with the Gold Coast.” Despite the pro-unification Togoland congress claiming to be acting on behalf of all, the historical records show that it really spoke only on behalf of only the Ewes in the South – i.e. between Ho and Keta. The Africa Today report of 1957 mentions splits in the ranks of the unificationists. They noted “the Togoland Congress claims to stand for the unification of all Togoland as though this area were a natural entity. Other unificationists say let the north and center go to the Gold Coast if they wish but the south (Ewe Territory) must remain as a Trust territory so that the door may be left open for the uniting of the Ewe nation.”
4.The Plebiscite and Matters Arising
In 1954, a United Nations Visiting Team to British Togoland recommended a plebiscite to be held to decide on the wishes of the Togoland people on the issues of whether the Trust Territory should be integrated into or secede from the Gold Coast. The plebiscite came about because the British government, having granted internal self-government to the Gold Coast in 1954, informed the UN it could no longer administer British Togoland separately after the Gold Coast had achieved full independence (Bening, 1983; p205). The future of the Togoland territory was decided based on majority votes of the plebiscite from these four areas: (1) Northern Section of British Togoland, (3) Kpandu and Ho Districts; (3) Buem-Krachi District north of the southern boundary; and (4) Buem-Krachi District.
On 9 May 1956, the poll was held with an 83% voter turnout estimated at 160,587 persons. A resounding 58% of the population backed the union with the Gold Coast with the remaining 42% voting against it. The same plebiscite in French Togoland, showed a majority of the people voting in favour of the territory becoming an autonomous republic within the French Union (Prescott, 1963). Interestingly, the results showed that there was an overwhelming support for the union in the Northern Togoland region whereas the Ewe-speaking areas of the south namely in Ho and Kpando voted strongly in favour of seceding from the new Ghana. To put this into context, Ho and Kpando regions comprised only about 15% of the territory in terms of landmass.
On this basis, the British government therefore recommended that the Trans Volta Togoland should be integrated into the Gold Coast. This suggestion, however, did not go down well with a portion of those from the Ewe speaking regions as they had opted to join the French Togo in the plebiscite which had then attained the status of an autonomous republic. There was even an armed rebellion by the people of Alavanyo against integration with the Gold Coast.
Figure 1 Results of the 1956 Plebiscite in British Togoland
Source: UN Year Book (1959) cited in Bening (1983)
Following the recommendation by the British government on the basis of the poll results, the Fourth Committee of the Eleventh Session of the General Assembly of the UN approved the union “…. and their recommendation was adopted by the General Assembly and on 6 March, 1957 the British trust territory of Togoland and the Gold Coast became the independent and unitary state of Ghana.” The new Parliament of Ghana after independence adopted the UN resolution to merge and integrate the Trans-Volta Togoland with Ghana which was then given the name Volta Region.
From the above historical exposition, it is trite to say the requisite protocols were followed in the run-up to Trans-Volta Togoland becoming part of the unitary state called Ghana. It is highly fatuous for anybody to claim that they have the right to secede because the Trans-Volta Togoland-Ghana union has not been formally established by way of a unionized constitution to date. The processes adopted and the results of the plebiscite were clear: the vote was not for federal union! Rather, it was to join a new unitary state called Ghana. The Queen did not need to incorporate Western (British) Togoland into an Act establishing Ghana – i.e. the 1956 Ghana Independence Bill.
This issue of secession did not start today. Indeed, some people publicly demanded secession from Ghana at a 1975 durbar attended by Gen. I.K. Acheampong at Ho. The historical records even show that a legion of Ewe chiefs also went to Lomé and petitioned the Ghana Ambassador there to initiate immediate negotiations between the two countries for a solution to the demands for the reunification of Togoland. Finally, let me restate here again that the May 1956 plebiscite duly prepared the way for British Togoland to join the Gold Coast and became a fully independent state of Ghana on 6 March 1957. The interests of elements in this fringe secessionist group should be discounted and treated with the contempt it deserves. I have not seen any 50 year expiry date on the plebiscite. Their claims are bogus!
Additional Reading (References)
1. Nugent, P., 2002. Smugglers, Secessionists, and Loyal Citizens on the Ghana-Toga Frontier. James Currey Publishers
2. Amenumey, D.E.K., 1989. The Ewe Unification Movement: A Political History. Ghana Universities Press.
3. McKay, V., 1956. Too slow or too fast. Foreign Affairs, Vol. 3 (2), pp. 295-310
4. Amenumey, D. E. K. “The 1956 Plebiscite in Togoland under British Administration and Ewe Unification.” Africa Today 3 (1976): 126-140.
5. Brown, D., 1980. Borderline politics in Ghana: The national liberation movement of western Togoland. The Journal of Modern African Studies,18(04), pp.575-609.
6. Coleman, J.S., 1956. Togoland. International conciliation, (509), pp.3-91.
7. Skinner, K., 2007. Reading, Writing and Rallies: The Politics of ‘Freedom’ in Southern British Togoland, 1953–1956. The Journal of African History,48(01), pp.123-147.
8. Bening, R.B., 1983. The Ghana-Togo boundary, 1914-1982. Africa Spectrum, pp.191-209.
9. Brown, D., 1982. Who are the tribalists? Social pluralism and political ideology in Ghana. African Affairs, 81(322), pp.37-69.
10. Prescott, J.R.V., 1963. Africa’s major boundary problems. The Australian Geographer, 9(1), pp.3-12.
Great write-up Theo! You’ve shown beautifully that they secessionists have no legal claim. But I’ve been looking at their page on facebook and it seems they’ve mastered the art of appealing to sentiments. And if they win the hearts of enough ppeople, they can become a force. I’m thinking of Biafra.
Theo thanks for the good write up.
Also prior to the plebiscite, areas to the south of Ho ie the Ketu areas, Anlo areas and others were originally part of Gold Coast administered territory and a study of the plebiscite shows that they did not take part in the voting. Are they then advocating for just the areas that took part in the voting (primarily from Ho upwards) to secede or they am asking for the whole Volta region to secede. Even if there was such an end to the plebiscite, surely the Ewes south of Ho cannot be made a part of this ‘new nation’ as they were originally part of the Gold Coast and not affected by the plebiscite.
On the whole these guys do not have a case. It may be led by a group of old folks from that area. Their request is not possible.
Kweku Darko Ankrah
With this map this is how it looks. as Kofi Amenyo narrates ….
A cursory look at the results reveals some clear-cut trends. The two predominantly Ewe districts of Kpandu and Ho voted massively for separation (69%) with an even more massive vote (79%) for union in the three northern-most districts. The northerners did not find themselves akin to the dominant Ewe south and a return to Togo or independence would have left some northern tribes divided with the Dagbon, for instance, having their capital in Yendi, while some of their people would belong to Ghana. An interlocutor has said on this forum that the singular vote of the Nanumba was decisive in the outcome of the results of the district to which they belonged. Buem/Krachi district, the heartland of the cocoa growing area perched in between the two, voted for union but had a significant number wanting separation. The area had (and still has) large migrants of Ewe speaking inhabitants drawn there by the available farming land and non-Ewe speakers who identified with Ewes. The British had not cared to develop the area to the same extent as the rest of the colony but the northern areas were even less developed – a fact which, unfortunately, is still the case today. But it was only the total votes that were considered. (Three years later, in a similar plebiscite in the British controlled Cameroon, the issues were more clear-cut and the areas that voted to rejoin Cameroon did so becoming the English speaking regions of that country with the rest remaining in Nigeria).
Thx theo for setting up the background facts. I am not for or against the group’s objectives. In fact I am open to any discussion if any group want to secede. My problem with group is if they think legally they are right, why haven’t they appeal to the Un or made a legal claim at the international court? Like all legal marriages sometimes a break is inevitable. The Scots who have been in union with the English for more than 300 yrs even want independence. When marriages come to an end, all assets and liabilities are proportionally shared. Similar argument was advanced in the Scottish referendum. My question is in case of independence, will this new state take up their share of ghana’s huge debt?
From the results,it is clear that kpando and Ho voted against the separation. It was said that people who were not in favour of it were abducted, tormented and killed by the power that be by then. For example, around Alavanyo areas, lots of atrocities were committed against people who kicked against the intimidation and manipulation of voting process.
This is no playing matter ooo. You know western arms companies are always angling around looking for such idiots to supply them with arms and start yet another western-sponsored war in Africa. My advice to the government is to put a media blockage on them, infiltrate them quietly and neutralise them if it is discovered that they pose a thread to the peace of the Ghanaian and west African population!
So we hereby assume that the people have no idea of their own history and all of a sudden Western referenced historical write-ups are so true to the records. It’s a pity we are witnessing the destruction of our nation due to these tribal sentiments and yet find it impossible for a group to sort out their grounds in making the right amends.
Well written and scholarly. I researched and found that UN Resolution 1044 did not indicate the expiration of the unification. As Prof Bodomo indicated, selfish individuals seeking leadership position may be instigating this. The time to act is now.
it will be too young now to juxtaose whether or not the sepereation will be of good to the people of the TRANS. Lets attack this with much dilligence and consultation so as to achieve optimum result to the best of our mother TRANS.
Yes but if you feel uncomfortable in a foreign land,,,what do u do? It happened in the time of the Israelites. Regardless how many years they spent or suffered in a foreign land. This could be a REVOLUTIONFOR A BETTER TOMORROW