|
A statement by the
Danquah Institute DANQUAH
WAS A GREAT PATRIOT, THE LIE ABOUT BEING A CIA AGENT
MUST STOP!
On Friday, February 11, during a current affairs
programme on Peace FM, a leading member of the ruling
National Democratic Congress repeated the posthumous
smear campaign that Joseph Boakye Danquah, the ‘doyen of
Ghana’ and co-founder of Ghana’s first political party,
the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC), was a CIA spy.
To support this false allegation, the NDC man stated
categorically that declassified CIA files of Ghana’s
First Republic name Dr Danquah, then the leader of the
United Party (UP), the main opposition party to Kwame
Nkrumah’s Convention People’s Party (CPP), as a CIA spy.
The Executive Director of the Danquah Institute called
into the radio programme to correct the false
information by saying that nowhere in any declassified
CIA files of the period (or any other period) is it
recorded that J B Danquah was a CIA spy.
The next day, Saturday, February 12, the NDC man was on
another radio station, Citi FM, repeating the untruth
but this time pointing to a different source, a book, he
claimed was written by a former US ambassador to Ghana,
Mr Mahoney. (We have chosen to leave the NDC man’s name
out because the lie was not generated by him but one
that has been told over and over again, especially by
people on the so-called left side of Ghana’s politics,
particularly the NDC.
This lie, which has been repeated over the years, has
been competently dealt with in an article on our website
(www.danquahinstitute.org).
WHAT STARTED THE LIE?
What was the basis of this serious allegation against
one of the greatest nationalists of the 20th century who
made the ultimate sacrifice by dying under political
detention for defending liberty and democracy in Ghana?
Opponents of the Danquah-Dombo-Busia political tradition
in Ghana have in the last decade or so seized with glee
and relish on a dubious information that came out of the
book, “JFK: Ordeal in Africa”. This book, written by
Richard Mahoney, son of the late William Mahoney, US
Ambassador to Ghana (1962-65), in a paragraph mentions
that Dr Danquah’s family, which at the time included 13
dependent children, allegedly received stipends from the
American Embassy in 1961 during his first period in jail
under the Preventive Detention Act. The issue was that
this was done without the knowledge of the Ambassador.
It is this third hand information that has been used to
damnify Dr Danquah as a traitor.
The author claims that during one meeting with his
father, the US Ambassador after Dr Danquah’s release
from detention, Danquah, who presumably assumed that the
Ambassador was aware of the arrangement, asked
Ambassador Mahoney how come the stipends that the
American Embassy opted to give to his wife to support
the family was stopped after Dr Danquah’s release! It is
rather a curious query in logic. Supposing the stipends
were being given to his family because the Americans,
touched by the circumstances of the family losing its
breadwinner temporarily, decided to offer some support
to a man who was pro-American in the dual global
politics of the Cold War era, was it not just logical
for that support to cease after his release from
detention?
Also, spies, informants or double agents usually have
their handlers. Why didn’t Danquah go to his ‘handler’
to complain but to the Ambassador who, as it turned out,
knew nothing about the apparent arrangement? Or, are we
not allowed to scrutinise the logicalities of claims
made by so-called chroniclers of our history? Nowhere in
that book or anywhere else, for that matter, has it been
alleged that Danquah personally received money from any
foreign power or agent.
On January 4, 1964 Dr Danquah was once again detained
under preventive custody. He died on February, 4, 1965,
a year before the CPP was overthrown. The 69-year-old
asthmatic patient, afflicted with hypertension, liver
complaint and heart attacks, was locked up in chains and
leg irons and left to die in a cell for condemned
prisoners of about six by nine feet.
It must be noted that the 1964 detention took place
before the coup which was supported by the CIA. Yet,
just months before his death at Nsawam prison, Dr
Danquah wrote to President Nkrumah pleading to be
released.
The letter of May 9, 1964 began: “Dear Dr Nkrumah, I am
tired of being in prison on preventive detention with no
opportunity to make an original or any contribution to
the progress and development of the country, and I
therefore respectfully write to beg, and appeal to you
to make an order for my release and return home. I am
anxious to resume my contru=ibution to the progress and
development of Ghana in the field of Ghanaian literature
(Twi and English), and in Ghana Research (History and
Culture), and I am anxious also to establish my wife and
children in a home, to develop the education of my
children (ten of them) and to restore my parental home
at Kibi (Yiadom House) to a respectable dignity, worthy
of my late father’s own contribution to the progress of
our country.”
The letter concluded, “I end as I began. I am tired of
being kept in prison kicking my heels, and doing nothing
worthwhile for the country of my birth and love., and
for the great continent of Africa which was the first to
give the entire world a real taste of civilisation. My
plea and my prayer to you, Osagyefo, is that I be
released to return home for the following specific
purposes: (1) To pursue my vocation for creative work in
Ghana literature; (2) To pursue my vocation for research
into Ghana history and culture; (3) To promote a home
for my wife and children and to promote the education of
my children as befits their talents; (4) To restore my
parental home at Kibi to a respectable dignity for use
of the younger and older members of the family; (5) To
pursue social and cultural life in Church and State; and
(6) To practise my profession as a lawyer to obtain the
wherewithal for the pursuit and promotion of the above
interests.”
The question must be asked: as his family had at this
time had to rely on his extended family to survive, had
the Americans at the time stopped looking after
Danquah’s family, as they allegedly did in 1961 during
his first detention? Had he stopped being a spy, with
the coup less than two years away? Or did the value the
Americans put on Danquah not sufficient enough to
sustain his family?
Really, what the book of the politician son of William
Mahoney sought to portray was that the CIA used to do
things without necessarily the knowledge of the
political heads. The Ambassador, who was a member of the
Irish circle of friends that President Kennedy
appointed, according to his son, went to complain to the
US President who then issued a directive which compelled
CIA operatives in foreign nations to work directly under
their various ambassadors.
Thus, if Danquah was a spy the new arrangements from
Washington ought not to have fundamentally disturbed
whatever existing arrangements he had with the CIA
before 1962, if indeed it was an espionage engagement.
If indeed, there was any such stipends to the detainee’s
family it might have come from the ‘heart’ of a system
that sympathised with the political cause of Dr Danquah.
Danquah’s life was characterised by sacrifice. He was
not rich and did not die leaving a legacy of material
wealth. His was the ultimate self-sacrifice for country.
And he paid the ultimate price for it -- with his life.
The reliability of the information in the younger
Mahoney’s has certainly been interrogated. Since the
author was at the material time barely 10 years old, we
must assume that the information came to him much later
from his father. This is because no declassified CIA
records of the period contain any such reference.
Indeed, we would still have defended him even if CIA
files were to name Danquah as a collaborator in efforts
to oppose the Nkrumah dictatorship of the First
Republic. But, would it have been treacherous for Dr
Danquah or any other opposition politician of that
period of uncompromising dictatorship to collaborate
with any sympathetic foreign power? Since when has that
been unpatriotic in the history of liberation struggles
across the world and, especially, during the Cold War
era?
CHOOSING BETWEEN SOVIET-STYLE DICTATORSHIP AND
WESTERN-STYLE DEMOCRACY
Dr Danquah made no secret about his preference for the
Western-style democratic model and free market.
Nkrumah’s sympathy and affinity for the Soviet system,
right from his student days, was equally well known and
documented. A turning point in the history of Nkrumah’s
controversial rule was his celebrated trip of that same
year, 1961, to the Communist states of Eastern Europe
and the Soviet Union. Already highly sympathetic to all
things Soviet – he tells us in his autobiography, titled
with his usual modesty ‘Ghana’, that he was [sic] “a
Hegelian-Marxist, non-Denominational Christian.” The
visit impressed him highly with the efficiency of the
Soviet model: state enterprises, state farms, central
planning, the command economy, rule by the “vanguard
party” – this was the wave of the future, the
irresistible force of history, so he thought. Ghana, the
first colonial nation in sub-Saharan Africa to escape
the clutches of imperialism, was required to be in the
forefront of that history.
So with considerable vigour, a systematic effort was
made to transform the Ghanaian economy into a replica of
the Soviet model. Between 1961 and 1966, the economic
landscape became littered with a multiplicity of state
enterprises and state farms. We even had our own
equivalent of the ‘Gossplan’ - the Seven Year
Development Plan. The state enterprises and farms of the
Nkrumah era proved to be no more efficient in Ghana than
they were in their country of origin. Far from being the
wave of the future, they have become synonymous with
economic failure and have been repudiated almost
everywhere they have been tried. Even in China, where
the vanguard party continues to hang on to power, the
rulers have seen the wisdom in reviving private property
rights and letting the market take an increasingly
central role in the allocation of resources. The Chinese
boom of the last two decades is the direct result. Deng
Xiaoping – he of the “it doesn’t matter if a cat is
black or white, so long as it catches mice”– not Mao Tse-Tung,
is the architect of this dramatic development, which has
led China towards a market economy and the second
largest economy in the world today.
Now, let us put Dr Danquah’s position during that heated
period of defining which path the new nation should
choose. It was no secret that Dr Danquah’s preference in
the titanic twentieth century struggle of the Cold War
was for the Western democracies, whose democratic
systems of government and open societies appealed very
much to his freedom-loving spirit. He was horrified by
the violent, crude, anti-democratic methods of
governance in the closed societies of the Soviet-style
states.
For example, on April 30, 1962, Dr Danquah, in a letter
to the Clerk of Parliament stated, what he called, the
“inadequacy, fatuity and wastefulness” of the Soviet
model. He condemned the Soviet model, “which rejects
religion and any kind of idealism or humanism from its
materialistic interpretation of man’s long history.”
He saw the Western model to, at least, evidently have
the capacity to enhance the dignity of the majority of
the people of the West because, in his words, “It is
clear that Socialism” does not pay “any heed to man’s
permanent motive forces or commitments – the commitment
to his God, to his country, to his family and to the
dignity of man as man.”
Beyond that, Dr Danquah saw in the American or Western
model the path to Ghana’s prosperity. “For evidence,” he
wrote, “there is to hand the incontestable fact that the
three great nations which have achieved an industrial
marvel after World War II, namely Western Germany, Italy
and Japan, did so not on a Socialistic or State
Capitalist economy, but on the basis of individual
initiative and free enterprise, guided by the free and
intelligent hand of their respective governments.”
Dr Danquah was firm in his belief in the principles of
liberal democracy, democratic accountability, the rule
of law, human rights, individual liberties, free
enterprise and social justice. He criticised the Soviet
Union, China and Cuba for showing great deficiencies in
allowing their people to freely exercise the above
values and virtues of human dignity. For the patriot
that he was, he wanted Ghanaians to be freed to excel
and be in charge of the country in its wholeness.
He wrote, “[I]n planning the libertation of Ghana what
our wise men of the ages, from Prince Brew of Dunkwa in
1871 to George Alfred Grant in 1947, sought was not
merely ‘the political freedom’ in the hope that ‘other
things’ would be added freely, but the total kingdom of
modern nationhood, including even culture, literature
and sports!”
A HISTORY OF SMEAR CAMPAIGNS AGAINST DANQUAH
Dr Danquah suffered smear campaigns during and after the
struggle for independence. In fact, what inspired the
above quote is a story best told by himself (his letter
of 30th January, 1962 to the Speaker of the National
Assembly):
“In 1949 certain three men, wishing to climb to the top
of Ghana politics over my dead body, spread a vile
campaign against me that in asking Sir Sydney Abrahams
at a tea party in Lancaster House, London, at the
African Conference of 1948, to come back to the Gold
Coast, as Ghana was then called, to reorganise our
sports for us, a visit which led eventually to the first
Gold Coast Sports Ordinance and the construction of the
present Accra Sports Stadium, I did so upon a corrupt
basis at the instance of the British Government for a
bribe of £25,000 for me to abandon Gold Coast politics
for Gold Coast sports!
“The men who set this vile rumour in motion against me
pointed at Sir Sydney Abrahams, a former
Attorney-General of the Gold Coast Athletics
Association, as the man who brought me and my colleagues
of the United Gold Coast Convention a bribe of £25,000
each to turn the people’s mind from politics to sports.”
Now to appreciate how effective this smear campaign was,
continue to read Danquah’s own account: “At that time
the evil campaign spread by the three men was made the
plank upon which the new party, the Convention People’s
Party, now the caesarian or imperialist party of Ghana,
was founded, the original leaders of the UGCC being
those thus sought to be discredited by the fabulous
story of their having accepted British money to ease off
from politics to sports.”
Another smear campaign was invented 69 days after his
arrest to justify his detention of October 3, 1961 that
foreign capitalist firms used him with £10,000 to bribe
the workers to go on strike against the Government’s
Budget.
His words from his condemned cell speak of how the
system abused this great patriot. Danquah wrote: “It is
perhaps my fate that, once again, even when I am behind
prison bars, a similar evil campaign should be started
against me in 1961, twelve years after the first!!! In
this plight I can only call upon the Ghana nation and
its august National Assembly to apply their capital mind
to the facts, to let the truth prevail, and, as Milton
said, ‘to justify the ways of God to man’... I cannot at
this stage expect the nation to offer me any thanks for
my 34 years of single-hearted devotion to the national
cause, to have been able to give Ghana not only the
clarion call to liberation ‘when the hour struck’, but
also to have discovered, after 16 years of research, the
glory of our ancient Ghana name... But although I do not
expect any kind of thanks now for giving our country’s
several tribes the basic foundation of a common
nationhood – GHANA – of which the people first became
fully conscious during the March 6, 1944 nationwide
centenary celebrations of the Bond of 1844, I entertain
the hope that my country men -- and the women – too, --
will leave me alone to enjoy quietly my poverty in my
ripe age of six and sixty years, and not again seek to
pile grief upon grief on to the glory of my greying
hairs.”
DANQUAH TO CIA AS NKRUMAH TO KGB?
It has been argued that both Nkrumah and Danquah, the
two great politicians of the time, made no secret about
their preferred ideologies, in the competition of ideas
between the East and West and yet they both rightly saw
themselves as patriots, whose formula for Ghana was in
the nation’s interest.
“Sir,” Danquah told the Clerk of Parliament, “I
personally see nothing traditional in the idea that
Ghana should with her eyes open, or her eyes
half-closed, repeat this soul-searing experiment in
Marxist-Socialism, by leaving Ghana’s big business in
the hands of foreign privately owned firms, aided and
abetted by a Ghana Capitalist Government in no way
experienced in trade or business, whilst the Ghanaian
himself... is to be restricted and confined to ‘small
trade’ or ‘small business’ in a ‘small way’. Surely it
ought to be evident that to confine or limit the
energies of a people to ‘small business’ as a general
economic policy is to sterilise instead of energise the
people’s economic capacities. The purpose of a
government is not to block or control but to liberate
its people’s energies – economic, intellectual, moral
and spiritual.”
But, Danquah was no stooge. “The wisest solution, to my
mind, is for each country to build mostly upon its own
foundations. Ghana’s foundations are to be found in what
has always made Ghanaians what they are – Ghanaists to
the backbone, that is to say, they are a people
remarkable for their belief in God, their love of
country, their devotion to family, their choice of
personal freedom, and their faith in humanity.”
Indeed, most political figures of the day, especially in
the so-called Third World, were required to make a
choice between East and West. For instance, Caculama,
the main training centre of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) in
the town of Malanje, Angola, was known to have been
sustained by the KGB. MK soldiers were trained by the
KGB. Joe Slovo the chief-of-staff of the ANC army and
Chris Hani, the army commissar, were known as devout
Communists, but could these gallant ANC heroes be
described as KGB spies because of their ideological
belief and their collaborations with the KGB?
Back home, Soviet security personnel were known to give
critical support to Nkrumah’s security. What about the
charge that the battle of Flagstaff House on February
24, 1966 involved Soviet security personnel fighting in
defence of the Nkrumah government? Should we question
Nkrumah’s patriotism merely because the KGB might have
played a role in Ghana’s security arrangements? In those
now distant days choices were the order of the day.
The KGB was for many people, especially those who valued
the democratic way of life and individual freedom, a
greater danger to life and liberty than the CIA. The
shredding of the Iron Curtain in Eastern Europe and the
emergence of multiparty democracy in Africa today is a
vindication for Danquah and his choices. He has, thus,
the merit of at least having been on the same side as
the victorious forces in the Cold War. The KGB, like the
rest of the Soviet system, has deservedly disappeared
into history.
THE CIA AND THE 1966 COUP
Reducing Danquah to a traitor fits well with the people
who bash the coup of 1966. The coup happened 12 months
after Dr Danquah died under Nkrumah’s PDA. The biggest
bone of contention is of the alleged involvement of the
CIA in the event. It would have been very strange, when
the Cold War was at its height in the 1960s, with Ghana
very much in the forefront of African politics, if the
intelligence agencies of the ‘Great Powers’ had not
concerned themselves with the affairs of Ghana. They
were all concerned, the Soviet KGB equally with the
American CIA.
The issue that is of greater interest is this: with a
Life President of a One Party State, whose rule was
backed by a preventive detention law that was in
constant usage, and where elections had become
nonexistent, how could lawful, peaceful change have been
effected in the Ghana of 1966? Regrettable as the
intervention of soldiers in our politics became,
especially because of subsequent events, the question
still cannot be avoided. The Ghanaian people
instinctively recognised that there was no other way.
Ghana may not be worth dying for if great nationalists
like Danquah can be posthumously dismissed with the lie
of being branded spies of a foreign country. Try as they
might, Danquah’s detractors cannot run away from one
crucial point. Even though he never occupied any
executive position in independent Ghana, the party and
tradition that he fathered with Paa Grant, which Dombo
and Busia helped build, remains a formidable force in
the Ghanaian polity.
Indeed, Dr Danquah’s legacy can be seen in the kind of
political system -- multiparty democracy, rule of law,
individual freedom and free enterprise – which the
Fourth Republican Constitution re-introduced to Ghana in
1992. Again, the emergence of the New Patriotic Party
over the last decade as, arguably, the largest political
party in Ghana, is also a testament to his vision and
greatness. Danquah’s set of ideas continues to be
extremely relevant to the resolution of our nation’s
problems.
In his own words, it was at the feet of the eminent
nationalist, “Ekra Agyeman, otherwise known as Joseph
Ephraim Casely Hayford, that I was brought up, like St
Paul under Gamaliel, and it was from Ekra Agyeman that I
learned selfless politics as the sacrificing of one’s
self totally for one’s own country. I sat under his feet
from 1915 to his own death in 1930.”
Danquah and Nkrumah both have their detractors but the
respective contributions that the two contemporaries
made to our history – Danquah in particular to the kind
of democratic culture growing in Africa and Nkrumah to
the Pan-African dream of a united Africa which still
agitates the minds of those who seek Africa’s wellbeing
-- can never be washed off by false propaganda. Let us
hail our heroes.
This article was published by the Danquah Institute, a
think tank dedicated to the philosophy and works of
Danquah. |