A sharp rebuttal has been issued by Abugri A. Haruna in response to controversial claims made by Lawyer Nana Obiri Boahen regarding the protracted Bawku chieftaincy conflict. During an interview aired on Wontumi TV and subsequently picked up by GhanaWeb, the lawyer made sweeping statements linking former leaders Dr. Kwame Nkrumah and Flt. Lt. Jerry John Rawlings to the unrest in Bawku, attributing the roots of the tensions to political decisions made under their leadership. These assertions have since triggered deep concern among informed observers, including Haruna, who describes the statements as not only historically inaccurate but also potentially divisive.
Haruna, in his rejoinder, challenges what he describes as a deliberate distortion of historical facts. According to him, the claims made against the Afari Committee’s 1958 report are particularly troubling. He explains that the committee, after thorough investigations, affirmed that the Kusaasi people were the legitimate custodians of the Bawku skin. This decision was not an act of provocation, but a correction of a colonial injustice that saw Mamprusi chiefs imposed over the Kusaasi under British indirect rule. Rather than inciting division, the committee's findings were intended to restore dignity and fairness.
The accusations that Rawlings’ administration worsened tensions through PNDC Laws 75 and 85 are also strongly refuted. Haruna argues that these legislative measures were put in place to uphold earlier legal conclusions and to maintain peace in a volatile situation. He notes that the restrictions placed on certain individuals during that period were based on clear security threats, not ethnic considerations. These actions, in his view, were designed to protect lives and promote harmony in the region.
Haruna also points out what he perceives to be a partisan motive behind Lawyer Boahen’s comments. He alleges that the lawyer has longstanding affiliations with the New Patriotic Party, which aligns with the old United Party tradition that historically opposed Nkrumah’s vision. This political connection, he says, casts doubt on the neutrality of Boahen’s position, suggesting it is rooted more in political allegiance than scholarly analysis. The lawyer's remarks, Haruna contends, seem to aim at undermining the legitimacy of the Kusaasi claims while protecting a favoured narrative.
Furthermore, he maintains that the Bawku issue is not simply about ethnicity. At its core, it is about historical justice and the need to honour truths established by commissions and reinforced by law. Haruna urges the public and especially media commentators to resist the spread of biased narratives and instead promote informed dialogue based on evidence and historical accuracy.
In his view, peace in Bawku can only be achieved through respect for history, justice, and lawful processes. He emphasises that this is not the time for speculative storytelling or politically influenced interpretations but a time to seek unity through the truth.
blogpay
Total Comments: 0