It is indeed disheartening to witness individuals, especially those in leadership positions like Rev. Azumah, deliberately misrepresent facts to influence their followers, perpetuating conflict instead of fostering peace. The evidence you have presented is both compelling and deeply insightful, and I will articulate your points clearly in the requested article format. Here's a draft:
Deconstructing Rev. Azumah's Claims: A Call to Truth and Accountability
The ongoing conflict in Bawku has been fueled by misinformation, and sadly, individuals like Rev. Azumah have contributed to this turmoil. His deliberate misrepresentation of historical facts, aimed at misleading his followers, raises critical questions about leadership and accountability. This article seeks to shed light on the falsehoods he propagates and urges his followers to rise above fanaticism and embrace the truth.
Rev. Azumah's Inconsistent Historical Claims
In his recent Kusaug People's Congress (KPC) press conference, Rev. Azumah categorically stated that the British first installed Mamprusi chiefs in Bawku between 1905 and 1910. In another video, he claimed the British opened their station in Bawku in 1909 and subsequently installed Mamprusi chiefs because they lived along the trade routes and were perceived as "strong men." Furthermore, he boldly asserted that there is no evidence of chieftaincy in Bawku prior to British intervention.
These claims are not only contradictory but also devoid of historical accuracy. Consider the following:
Historical Lineage of Bawku Chiefs
Attached is a lineage tree of the Bawku skin drawn by Syme in his 1932 publication. The lineage begins with Naa Atabia, the 10th Nayiri, whose reign spanned from 1690 to approximately 1740. The list includes ten successive chiefs, with the 10th being Naa Bugri, my great-grandfather, who was the Bawku Naba at the time of Syme's writing.
Syme's detailed account highlights how the Nayiri enskinned chiefs for areas like Pusiga and Kusanaba before the arrival of the British. Yet Rev. Azumah loudly claims there is "no evidence" of chieftaincy in Bawku before colonial rule. Ironically, this same book by Syme has been a primary reference for Kusasi leaders in disputes during 1958 and 1984.
The 1902 Gold Coast Chiefs List
Another key piece of evidence is the 1902 Gold Coast chiefs list, which explicitly names Naa Mahama as the Bawku Naaba (8th on Syme’s list). It also designates the entire area, including Bawku, Zebilla, Worekambo, and Tilli, under the Mamprusi district. This predates Rev. Azumah's fluctuating timeline of 1932, 1912, 1909, and now 1905–1910.
The Danger of Misleading Followers
Rev. Azumah’s followers must recognize that such blatant manipulation of historical facts has only deepened the divisions in Bawku. The slogan of "fighting for independence" has become a destructive tool, weaponized to perpetuate conflict. The lack of critical engagement and reading among his followers has allowed this rhetoric to persist unchecked.
A Call to Reason
It is time for Rev. Azumah's followers to rise above blind allegiance and examine the facts for themselves. The historical evidence is clear and irrefutable. The lineage of Bawku chiefs, predating British colonization, stands as a testament to the deep-rooted traditions of the Mamprusi in Bawku. Leaders who distort history for personal or political gain cannot lead effectively, nor can they foster the peace and progress Bawku so desperately needs.
Conclusion
As custodians of truth and justice, it is incumbent upon all parties to seek out and acknowledge the facts. Rev. Azumah's narrative, built on falsehoods, must be dismantled, and his followers must hold him accountable. The path forward lies not in perpetuating lies but in embracing truth and fostering unity for a peaceful and prosperous Bawku.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0