THE HISTORY OF ASOGLI STATE, VOLTA REGION-GHANA.
The Asogli people, like most Ewe speaking people, trace their origin from a place called Abyssinia in what is now Ethiopia. They migrated with other Ewes from Abyssinia to Oyo in Yorubaland, Western Nigeria. From Oyo they went to Ketu in Dahomey (now Benin) before settling at Notse in present day Republic of Togo in about the 12th century.
Oral history has it that in their settlements at Ketu and Notse, the Ewes lived in walled cities called Agbome, literally meaning within the fence wall. At Notse, the Ewes were ruled by a tyrant, King Agorkorli whose sadistic rule is reported in the historical records of all Ewes.
The Asoglis naturally detested the rule of King Agorkorli and, under the leadership of Togbe Kakla, they broke through a portion of the fortified wall for all Ewes to escape. Togbe Kakla and his people broke the wall after softening it through a planned and persistent splashing of water.
The conspiracy included a deceptive plan under which the escaping subjects walked backwards out of the walled city. The objective was to create the impression that the footprints they left were those of people who had entered the city. This confused the King’s soldiers and by the time they realized what had happened, most of the subjects had escaped to freedom.
“Gligbayi”, the dagger which Togbe Kakla used in breaking through the wall of Notse, is a sacred relic of the Ewes. It is in the custody of the Agbogbomefia, the traditional overlord of Asogli State.
Togbe Kakla and his people broke away from the larger Ewe group to settle at Komedzrale, near what is now Ho, the capital of the Volta Region of Ghana in West Africa. At Komedzrale, the Asoglis engaged in subsistence farming and hunting.
Oral history has it that Togbe Kakla had three sons and a daughter. These were Akoe, Letsu, Asor and Esa. As Komedzrale lands gradually lost their fertility and could no longer support any meaningful economic activity and the growing population, the Asoglis migrated further.
The descendants of Akoe and Letsu founded Akoefe and Kpenoe, and later, Takla. The descendants of Asor settled at the present day Ho after a brief sojourn at Hofedo. The only daughter of Togbe Kakla, Esa, migrated and settled at present day Saviefe which lies north of Ho.
THE ROYAL TENUKPO AZADAGLI STOOL, Tadzewu.
23rd January 2018.
THE ROYAL PALACE OF EYAA AGLOHU II, Tadzewu.
My Dear Togbi Eyaa Aglohu II,
It is with the greatest of concerns that I write this letter to you to bring to your notice the pain and embarrassment that you caused the occupant of the Azadagli Stool as well as the whole Royal House of Azadagli.
In a recent development concerning the celebration of the 2016 HOGBETSOTSO MINI DURBAR at Tadzewu, you had cause to write to the Chairman, Anlo Hogbetsotso Committee through your counsel Binewoatsor Law Consult, and copied to a wide circle of personalities and offices, a letter expressing your grievances as to the manner in which your office and status as the Dufia of Tadzewu was being undermined.
In the said letter which sought the attention of the Awadada of Anlo Togbi Agbeshie II, and headed; MATTERS CONCERNING THE CELEBRATION OF THIS YEARS HOGBETSOTSO MINI DURBAR AT TADZEWU AND THE ROLE OF THE DUFIA OF TADZEWU – TOGBI EYAA II, – our attention has been drawn to paragraph 2, and I quote; “Togbi Eyaa II, known in private life as Benjamin Korku Avornyo, was duly selected, enstooled and outdoored as the Dufia of Tadzewu in the Afife Traditional Area in 2014, almost two years ago. As the Dufia of Tadzewu, Togbi Eyaa II is the rightful authority on matters connected with or related to the wielding and exercising of traditional authority in the township of Tadzewu. All other chiefs (if any) including merely honorary persons such as so called development chiefs in Tadzewu are subordinate to the traditional authority of Togbi Eyaa II” unquote.
Due cognizance is hereby being given that it is within your remit to write such a letter to right a perceived wrong that was being done against your office and person as the Dufia of Tadzewu. We have no problem with anything that is culturally and traditionally appropriate and pleasing to common sense and accepted behavior.
Here is the catch. We take very serious exception to the 7th line, para 2 of the said letter which stated inter alia; All other chiefs (if any) including merely honorary persons……. etc, which questioned the legitimacy and the rightful existence of any other chief or stool in Tadzewu.
You by your letter are trying to tell the whole world that apart from the Eyaa Aglohu Stool, there is or are no other stools, gazetted and recognized by the State of Ghana in Tadzewu. That is very unfortunate.
By your letter you mischievously questioned the valor and might of a legend called Togbi Azadagli, whose bravery in battles for Anlo are well documented and recognized, and a stool which was duly created and established as one of the two old stools in the Afife Traditional Area town of Tadzewu.
It is very sad and unfortunate that you had to descend to such low levels to make your case and point. That level from where your abuse and insult and disrespect to your colleague and others came from can never guarantee peace within the confines of Tadzewu. The humble community of Tadzewu had known unparalleled peace for generations now. Why rumble the cot today with that uncalled for language?
Suffice to say you were not properly briefed by your kingmakers during your confinement and after, that there is a stool (an equal black stool or awadezi) in Tadzewu alongside that on which you sit today. So therefore we will not blame you. And again we will also not question your legitimacy, because we were living witnesses to your installation as the Dufia of Tadzewu, from the very day your elder brother who was the chosen of the gods eloped, and you had to be asked to fill the vacancy, because nature abhors a vacuum. We were there from the beginning to the end and we participated fully, financially and physically and spiritually. Moral support from us cannot be discounted. So we need not be told that you are not illegitimate.
With due respect to the high and mighty Royal Lord, the Dufia of Tadzewu, His one and only Overlord of everything, Togbi Eyaa Aglohu II, may we suggest that you go back and sit with your elders, the elders that you have sidelined, and ask them how the Mighty Azadagli came to be installed as chief of Tadzewu, how the Black Stool of Azadagli came into being, something that your old folks themselves had no control over but were witnesses to, how the Paramountcy and Lords of The House of Adrakpanya and The Majestic Awoamezi of Anlo and its King saw it fit and appropriate to confer a deserved chieftaincy title on someone you chose in your ignorance to demean and a Stool you chose to deride.
And if you find it difficult to go before your recognized and legal and legitimate Zikpitor Yao Avornyo, and the Elders you believed have nothing to teach you, then may we humbly suggest again that you rather approach the President of ATACA, who also happens to be the Dusifiaga of Afife, Togbi Adzaklo II and Togbi Agbeve Ayirim II, the Dufia of Agbevekorpe and the Honorable General Secretary of ATACA, who are deep wells of wisdom in a lot of fields, and also in chieftaincy and the traditional norms of the Afifes for the needed tuition, so as to forestall any future faux pas from you during your tenure of office.
And to your further information, the humble servants of the community that we respect so much, and which you derogatorily termed “so-called Development Chiefs” were installed by both the Houses of Azadagli and Ayivor (now Eyaa Aglohu). Your highly respected immediate predecessor, Togbi Ayivor III, Dufia and Togbui Tenukpo Azadagli III, Fia of Tadzewu were witnesses to the services rendered by the likes of Hon Alex Segbefia, former Minister of Health of Ghana, and were not hesitant in installing him the Dunenyo Fia of Tadzewu.
It was a widely authorized and celebrated public event in which the whole township of Tadzewu and its surrounding villages fully participated. The same goes for the present Ngoryifia of Afife Traditional Area. This personality you so derided and ridiculed in your letter singlehandedly saw to the burial of your predecessor, and was also the greatest instrument in the whole works that culminated in the successful selection, installation and outdooring of the Dufia known as Eyaa Aglohu II.
The contributions of this writer, and those of Togbui Tenukpo Azadagli III and Togbui Agbeve Ayirim II cannot be discounted. How ungrateful can one be.
We will not ask anyone to tell us if there is any other stool in Tadzewu alongside the Azadagli Stool, because the present occupant of the stool was outdoored on the same day as your immediate past predecessor Togbi Ayivor III, also known in private life as Mr Victor Nenyewode Ezi. We won’t make that mistake.
Again we aren’t going to question the legitimacy and the existence of the Ayivor/Eyaa Stool, because much records exist, if you care to know, in the secretariat of the paramountcy of Adrakpanya at Afife and Anlo Traditional Council offices of the mighty deeds of both houses of Azadagli and Eyaa.
To enlighten you and your house further, and to other like minds within your circle who believe there is no other stool apart from the one in your family, the very immediate past occupant of the Azadagli Stool, elected on 24th of April, 1953, known in private life as Etu Honu, even though was a Regent, applied for inclusion into the Chiefs List of the WHETA/AFIFE/KLIKOR LOCAL COUNCIL on 26th of September, 1956. His stool elders were men of honor and repute and they made sure he never said anything to breach the peace of the community at that time. And again he did not falter or say anything demeaning to his colleague Ayivor Stool occupant.
Some records you cannot wish away. The role played by the present occupant of the Azadagli Stool, who was with your kingmakers day and night, in your bed and drawing rooms, and in your own stool room cannot be discounted. When the going became tough, it was the tough Azadagli Stool which stood by your family and saw to a successful coronation. Then, Togbi Tenukpo Azadagli III was a chief of Tadzewu to your misguided collaborators. Is this the thanks that we get from you?
We the present elders of the stool are sparing no effort in teaching our new occupant the norms of decent behavior as far as utterances are concerned.
During the Regency of Amega Etu Honu, some notable members of the Tadzewu community served at his court as advisers and elders. A short list of these elders of blessed memory, whose wise counsel and good deeds still reverberate within the confines of power in Anlo, will serve as a constant reminder to you and your collaborators how glorious and peaceful the community was during those times of old. These were men who departed Tadzewu to eternity with and in full glory. The list has some enviable names like; 1. Wutogui Azadagli, 2.Dahumegbor Sedzro, 3.Fred Ayaotor Attipoe, 4. Chief Emmanuel Nutornutsi Kluvia, 5. Atsu Adukpo, 6. Dzaka Kargbe, 7. Zioklui Dogbatse, 8. Atsikor Tovor, 9. Koto Adzaklo and last but not the least, 10. Akpabli Honu.
It is regretable to hear that all efforts and attempts being made to make you see reason by some of your concerned and enlightened elders in the persons of Zikpitor Yao Avornyo, C. K. Egbenya and C. K. Zormelo fell on deaf ears. Other attempts by the Clergy in the community you equally rebuffed.
Lest we forget, for peace and harmony to prevail within Tadzewu and for a smooth celebration of the Hogbetsotso event, the House of Azadagli was prevailed upon to exercise patience, and that immediately after the program, the elders of the Afife paramountcy will see to a settlement and resolution of this issue of “I am the only chief.” But regretably again, you spurned their initial efforts and so nothing has been heard from the House of Adrakpanya till date.
We therefore deemed it fit to demand an unqualified apology from you, and also demand that you employ and use the same channel you earlier used, to correct that wrong impression you created and shared, and also you must clearly indicate that there is another legitimate stool in Tadzewu, within the Afife Traditional Area called The Azadagli Stool, alongside that of the Eyaa Aglohu Stool, and of equal ranking, but your stool holds the place of Dufia, for the mere fact that in a classroom there must be a leader.
I remain with regards,
Yours in the service of Tadzewu.
Godwin Doe Adamah. Secretary to the Royal Tenukpo Azadagli Stool of Tadzewu.
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