|
|
ISLAM, POLITICS AND DEVELOPMENT: NEGOTIATING THE
FUTURE OF DAGBON
A LECTURE DELIVERED BY
MUSTAPHA ABDUL-HAMID
LECTURER
DEPARTMENT OF RELIGION AND HUMAN VALUES
UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST
CAPE COAST
DATE: 11TH APRIL, 2011.
VENUE: ALISA HOTEL, ACCRA.
TIME: 5:00pm
Part One
Part Two
The crisis in history
We are having this conversation because Dagbon is in
conflict. According to Walter Isard, conflict is a
phenomenon that is an important part of human
existence, whiles Dudley Weeks postulates that it is
a natural part of our daily lives. The founding of
the dagbon state was borne out of conflict and
disagreements. According to the historical accounts,
the Dagombas are descended from Na Gbewa. After the
death of Na Gbewa and subsequently his first son, a
struggle ensued between three of his sons as to who
should succeed their father’s throne. Eventually,
they split and founded separate states. Sitobu, the
next eldest founded the Dagbon kingdom. The one
after him, Yantaure, founded the Mossi kingdom.
Ngmantambo founded the Nanumba kingdom and finally,
the youngest, Tohugu, founded the Mamprugu kingdom.
There are disagreements as to the exact date of the
founding of the Dagbon kingdom. However, all the
accounts would point to a date between 1300-1400 C.E.
Even after the founding of the Dagbon kingdom, the
process of ascencion to the skin have had more than
its fair share of dispute and sometimes brutal
conflict. For example, after the death of Na Zokuli
(1609-1627), there was a struggle between two of his
sons to occupy the skin after him. In the end the
dispute was submitted to oracle arbitration. The
oracles chose Na Gungobli (1627-1677). After the
death of Na Gungobli, dispute revisited as to which
of his sons would succeed him. This time, they
agreed to submit to the arbitration of the king of
the Mamprusis. He chose the youngest among them to
be Ya Na. He was Na Zangina (1648-1677), the man who
introduced Dagbon to Islam.
The point that I seek to make here is that power can
engender conflict. Coser defines conflict as:
a struggle over values or claims to status,
power and scarce resources, in which the aims of the
conflicting parties are not only to gain the desired
values, but also to neutralize, injure or eliminate
their rivals. Such conflicts may take place between
individuals, between collectivities or between
individuals and collectivities.
At this stage I would like to put the current crisis
in perspective, which is the Abudu-Andani affair. Na
Abdulai from whom the Abudu gate derives its name,
ruled from 1837-1858. After him, his brother, Na
Andani II, ruled from 1858-1896. These two had a
common father, Na Yakubu I, who reigned from
1799-1838. Na Yakubu I ascended to the throne
through a military attack that led to the death of
the then sitting Ya Na, Ya Na Suman Zoli (1778 to
1799), led by the nephew of Na Yakubu, Yelizoli Lana
Lagfu. Two hundred and three years later in 2002,
one of Na Yakubu I’s descendants, Yakubu Andani II,
was also killed in a similar communal war, related
to the chieftancy dispute. “History” they say,
“repeats itself.” But, should we allow the negative
aspects of history to be repeated when we have the
power to define and redirect our destiny? The
lessons that we take from the repetitions are what
we must consider as important.
Dagbon was partitioned in 1899, with Eastern Dagomba
going to the Germans and Western Dagomba to the
British. After the death of Na Andani, Na Darimani,
who was seen as the legitimate heir to the throne
was prevented from ascending the throne by the
Germans because in the words of Abdulai Yakubu, “his
supporters had antagonised them.” This according to
Abudulai Yakubu, marked “the very first government
interference in the kingship and this was the very
first year of colonisation.” Of course this was the
German colonialists. This perhaps set the tone for
the external politicisation and interference in
Dagbon skin affairs that have bedeviled the struggle
for the Yendi skins to date.
From 1899, we shall fast track to 1948, which is
after the death of Mahama I (1838-1948), who was a
member of the Andani family. He was succeeded by
Mahama II (1948-1953), an Abudu. After Mahama II’s
death, the first born son of the late Mahama I, Gbon
Lana Andani, sought to succeed Mahama II. But, in
March 1954, the British intervened and gave the
kingship to Abdulai III, who was an Abudu. Andani
then became Mion Lana. Disastisfaction that the
succession of Ya Na Abdulai III engendered was to
endure for a long time. Indeed, it still lingered to
this day and was certainly a remote factor in the
events of 25th-27th March, 2002.
At this stage, it is important to state that at the
arbitration in 1648 which gave the kingship to Na
Zangina, the king of the Mamprusi, who was the
arbitrator, also introduced a system of succession
that stated that only sons of Ya Na who occupy the
skins of Karaga, Savelugu and Mion should ascend to
the Yendi skin. Whether by the rotational principle
of Andani-Abudu, or by the principle of one
occupying the skins of Savelugu, Karaga and Mion, it
was seen as now the turn of Mion Lana Andani to
succeed to the throne.
1954 was an election year. The Northern People’s
Party (NPP) had been formed a year earlier and was
the strongest political force in the northern
territories. The Dagomba elite, with sympathies for
the different sides of the chieftaincy divide, took
advantage to exploit the political authority for
their respective sides.
The Ya Na, Abdulai III, was himself a
supporter of the Northern Peoples Party. The
Northern Peoples Party commanded the support of most
of the chiefs in the northern territories. Two
prominent Dagomba politicians and were to play a big
role in the unfolding events of the succession
dispute. These were J.H Allasani, a Ministerial
Secretary in Nkrumah’s office, and Yakubu Tali,
Tolon Na. J.H Allasani in particular made the
destoolment of Na Abdulai III a part of his
political agenda, arguing that his aim was “a desire
to see justice done and tradition respected.” By
tradition he meant a respect for the rotational
system of succession. Ladouceur further states that
J.H Allasani spearheaded a major campaign to have
the Ya Na destooled shortly after independence. He
is reported to have stated openly at a rally in the
Yendi market that the Ya Na would be destooled.
Cont"d.......3/5
|
