Strong partisanship started in Ghana when Kwame Nkrumah divided the nation into patriots and traitors. Patriots were those who accepted that he should be president for life, practice one party state and communism and indulge ... read full comment
Strong partisanship started in Ghana when Kwame Nkrumah divided the nation into patriots and traitors. Patriots were those who accepted that he should be president for life, practice one party state and communism and indulge in Leftist anti-Western propaganda using the small country's meager resources to challenge centuries' old, well-established Western countries. They even accepted that he should act as savior of the Blackman around the world, while tyrannizing his own Black people at home because they have alternative views for development of their country.
Those who wanted him to concentrate more on the basic needs of the young nation and tone down his rhetoric against the powerful were called traitors, reactionaries, and agents of imperialism that should be liquidated and imprisoned dead or alive. Could you believe that the opposition members he was tyrannizing were the very people who started the struggle for our independence? They employed Nkrumah and paid for his ticket from the UK to come and work as General Secretary of the group, saving him from the tyranny of unemployment in London. The independence struggle vanguards were senior civil servants in the Gold Coast. And as their struggle was gaining momentum and scope of their activities widening, they needed someone to work full-time for the group; free from official work constrains to further spread message of the struggle.
Under their responsibility and protection, Nkrumah used the platform to become public face of the group and his popularity soared. This was because; many of our people in those days could not differentiate between the spokesperson and the leaders that managed to provide the platform and were the architects of the struggle. Being public voice of the group, they saw him as the person or the only person that was fighting for our independence. Subsequently, when he heard from the Governor General's female secretary, who was later on sacked, that the British were preparing to grant us independence, he increasingly used needless militant tactics to provoke the Whiteman, when it was clear that the wind of change was blowing, and also embarrass his employers in order to outfox them. He then used the opportunity to break away from the group, forming his own party and slapping them from behind to take power.
This explains the strong partisanship in the country and why Nkrumah didn't want the Liberation Vanguards to ever come to power in his life time. Maybe, he was afraid of his own ghost. Unfortunately, and despite all these plain facts, his supporters still want us to believe that he initiated, spearheaded and single handedly fought for our independence, and therefore name every national project after him as if we were in a kingdom.
francis kwarteng 10 years ago
Kwame Nkrumah: The ONE and ONLY Founding Father of Ghana - Part I ...2014 Independence Day Special..
......................................
ntroduction.
That Kwame Nkrumah is the founder of modern Ghana is not debatabl ... read full comment
Kwame Nkrumah: The ONE and ONLY Founding Father of Ghana - Part I ...2014 Independence Day Special..
......................................
ntroduction.
That Kwame Nkrumah is the founder of modern Ghana is not debatable; yet, there are still some guilty and misguided individuals among us who would clothe themselves in an oblong missile and blast it from Mars into a fortified round hole. Since the late President Arthur Mills declared Kwame Nkrumah’s birthday as a statutory Founder’s Day in Ghana, certain resentful, misguided and ill-informed individuals have been blowing their shattered trumpets from Mars about their so-called “founding fathers” by way of distorting and turning Ghana’s political history upside down. So far, they have failed to provide any cogent argument/s to underscore their hodgepodge position. By their imprudent logic, all leaders of the anti-European intruders, anti-Gold Coast Crown colony, pro-self-government Fante confederation, anti-AWAM (European merchants), anti-draconian indirect rule, cocoa hold-up, as well as ethnocentric, terrorist and secessionist crusaders, from 1482 to March 6, 1957, are “founding fathers.” But going by the American benchmark, “Founding Fathers,” refers to a group of individuals (men) with shared political philosophy and ideology, vision and socio-economic values, who struggle, revolt, and/or fight together to overthrow their foreign overlord to found a nation based on a constitution. In the case of Ghana, can the so-called “founders fathers” meet this criterion? Aside from their sabotaging and domestic terrorist tactics (including bombing, shooting, and hunting down supporters of the CPP), parochial objectives and secessionist goals, none of the names that often pop up played any role, identified or associated themselves with Kwame Nkrumah and his CPP’s political ideology, Pan-African vision, strategy and tactics, which galvanized the common people and some “chiefs” to rally behind Kwame Nkrumah’s struggle for a unified country from 1949 to the 1954 and 1956 general elections. It was consequent to the victory of Nkrumah and his CPP (the first and only political party in all the four independent territories under the British colonial administration) in the 1956 general election that modern Ghana was founded on March 6, 1957. As the subsequent discourse shows, not only did the champions of barefaced ethnocentrism, parochialism and secessionism ferociously try to sabotage Ghana’s independence, but they also oppose the name, Ghana, when Kwame Nkrumah proposed it. So, why are they “Founding Fathers?”
Origin of the UGCC.
In the aftermath of the so-called World War II and the collapsed of the British economy, the British colonial government limited import and export licenses to the Association of West African (Europeans) Merchants (AWAM). Feeling marginalized, some of the African merchants led by George Paa Grant (a wealthy Sekondi merchant), Awoonor-Williams (a Sekondi-based lawyer) and others formed the Gold Coast League as a pressure group to advance their economic and political interest. Concurrently, the upshot of Dr. J. B. Danquah’s connection with the ritual murder of Odikro of Akyea Mensah of Apedwa brought him (Danquah) into conflict with Governor Allen Burns. As a result, J. B. Danquah, Erick Akufo Addo, Ako Adjei and others in Accra formed the Gold Coast National Party to oppose the Burns Constitution. The irony here is that in Governor Burns’ constitutional reform in the late 1930s, Dr. J. B. Danquah pressed for the creation of an Office of Minister of Home Affairs for himself. As well, Dr. Danquah had wholeheartedly embraced the Burns Constitution by representing the Joint Provincial Council of Chiefs in the Burns Legislative Council in 1946.
Dr. J. B. Danquah’s personal contradictory positions notwithstanding, the economic and political interest of these two pressure groups resulted in a marriage of convenience and became the United Gold Coast Convention in Saltpond in August 1947, under the leadership of George Paa Grant. The main objective of this self-selected “Gentlemen’s Club,” comprising lawyers, merchant, wealthy cocoa farmers, and other similar-minded individuals was to advance their economic and political interest through political power sharing with the Colonial Government. Most critical was their call for the replacement of Chiefs on the Legislative Council with educated persons. The important thing to note here is that the UGCC was a loose, [Gentlemen’s Club] without program of action, funds and bank account.
Because of its self-appointed mandate, the UGCC avoided designating itself as a political party; thus, seeing themselves as “rightful rulers,” its original initiators detested the idea of political parties. Secondly, as bourgeoisies, they took politics to be a leisure activity. Their elitist outlook also prevented them from reconciling themselves with the people. Hence, they needed Nkrumah’s kind of leadership and organizational skills to bring some of the “chiefs” and people into their fold, and turn the UGGC into a popular movement to oppose and upset the Burns Constitution. The big question, however, is, if the UGCC was truly a “movement struggling for independence (as some apologists have claimed), why did its initiators not give up their private business and professional endeavors as Vladimir Lenin, Nelson Mandela, Augustino Neto, Mahatma Gandhi and others did, rather than search for another citizen (Nkrumah) outside the territory with special leadership and organizational skills to become its general secretary?
Kwame Nkrumah as the Antidote to the UGCC Handicaps.
Ako Adjei, who recommended Kwame Nkrumah as the antidote to the UGCC’s inadequacies, knew about Nkrumah’s anti-colonial crusade and Union of West African States agitation in the US, as well as his unique organizational kills and leadership roles during and after the 5th Pan-African Congress in Manchester. To test the waters, Ako Adjei wrote to ask Nkrumah if he would consider returning to the country to become the General Secretary of a newly formed UGCC. Without waiting for his response, Awoonor-Williams wrote a letter, and signed by Paa Grant, to Nkrumah, offering him the job of General Secretary, a monthly salary of one hundred pounds and a car. Dr. J.B. Danquah followed it up his letter urging him to accept the position. So, who was the “opportunist” here, as some functional illiterates and boorish individuals try to impute in their hoaxed writings? Clearly, they wanted to use Nkrumah to attain their selfish goal, namely to replace the “Chiefs” on the Legislative Council with themselves, self-styled elites.
The fact is Nkrumah initially was reluctant to accept the offer as he perceived the UGCC members to be “bourgeois reactionaries” enamored in capitalist ideology and philosophy. Secondly, he, as the General-Secretary of West African National Secretariat, as well as Chairman of “The Circle,” was at the time busy working on a West African National Conference towards a Union of West African Socialist Republics, slated to be held in Lagos in October 1948. Nonetheless, after meeting with his comrades in the West African National Secretariat, it was decided that Nkrumah should accept the offer and return to operationalize the 1945 Manchester Pan-African Congress resolutions. Nkrumah assured them that he would not compromise with the reactionaries and reformists in the UGCC (Smertin) So, right from the beginning, Nkrumah understood his mission as returning to, inter-alia, liberate the Gold Coast from British colonialism, and make Ghana the liberated zone for the total liberation of the African continent.
Prior to Kwame Nkrumah’s acceptance of the invitation to become the General Secretary of the yet-to-be christened UGCC, he had committed himself to serious revolutionary work, which entailed personal sacrifices. THE CIRCLE, under his Chairmanship, had as its motto, “The Three S’s—Service, Sacrifice, Suffering,” to which each member pledged and swore. It was this commitment to “revolutionary suicide,” to borrow Che Guevara’s lexis, that distinguished Kwame Nkrumah from the conformists in the Gentlemen’s Club (UGCC).
The Return of Kwame Nkrumah and the Launching of The UGCC.
The main issues the UGCC had to resolve once Kwame Nkrumah arrived on December 8 1947, were confirmation of his appointment as general secretary, and affirmation of his salary and car, contained in Paa Grant’s letter. But the one hundred pounds monthly salary promised him, Nkrumah soon found out, was a bait. Not perturbed by monetary compensation for revolutionary work, Nkrumah told them that he would work for free, if the compromised twenty five pounds was going to be difficult for the organization. Though the gentlemen looked at each other in astonishment, they prevailed on Nkrumah to accept the compromised monthly remuneration. Thereafter, under Kwame Nkrumah’s capacity as General Secretary, the UGCC was formally launched in Saltpond on December 29, 1947. So, if everything was “cooked” before Kwame Nkrumah’s arrival, as some shame-faced individuals have claimed, why did this self-appointed “gentlemen’s club,” (UGCC) wait for Nkrumah to launch it in his capacity as General Secretary? In fact the idea that everything was “cooked” prior to the return of Nkrumah is totally false, if not hogwash.
The Objective of the UGCC.
The objective of the UGCC was “to ensure by all legitimate and constitutional means the direction and control of government should pass into the hands of the people and chiefs in the shortest possible time.” This is delusional. First of all, who begged the British and other European monarchies to send their coach-managers to nurture the pre-colonial Africans to maturity before allowing them to rule themselves? Second, saying that “by all ‘legitimate’ and ‘constitutional’ means” not only legitimized the evil British colonization of the Gold Coast, but it also gave credence to the so-called “white man’s burden.” In effect, “by all ‘legitimate’ and ‘constitutional’ means” meant that any forceful demand, demonstrations, boycotts, strikes, uprising, rebellions or positive action confrontation with the British colonial government were illegal and illegitimate, as Dr. Danquah would later characterize the Positive Action. Did the subjugated Irish people “ensure by all legitimate and constitutional means” so that “the direction and control of government” be passed on from the Anglo-Norman rulers into their (Celtics’) hands “in the shortest possible time?” If the Irish people would wage a war against the Anglo-Norman occupation of Ireland from 1177 to 1921 (especially the IRA-led ‘Irish War of Independence’ from 1916 to 1921 for a Home Rule), what about a little over 100 year- old British Gold Coast [Black African] colony?
The request for self-government “in the shortest possible time” is connotative and laughable. Colonialists and imperialists are sly, vicious, always buying time and waiting for opportune moments to disintegrate opponents in the colonies. Historical evidence proves that colonial government or foreign settler regimes never “PASS” on the control of government into the hands of the colonized and/or occupied people, “by all legitimate and constitutional means…in the possible shortest time?” Rather European colonial governments employed deliberate policy of brute violence to suppress legitimate protests, uprisings, rebellions in India, Kenya, South Africa, Angola, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Namibia and other places. In the Gold Coast, the Fante Confederacy’s demand for self-government from the British colonial rule led to the arrest of its leaders. Likewise, the peaceful protest march by the Ex-servicemen to the seat of the colonial government in 1948 was met with violence. In the case of the planned CPP-GCTUC’s Positive Action in 1950, the same British colonial government flew war planes into the country with the intention of crushing the non-violent Positive Action. As this paper shows, it was the POSITIVE ACTION, and NOT the feet-dragging strategy, which set in motion the Kwame Nkrumah CPP’s forceful and immediate demand for independence from the illegal British colonial rule in the Gold Coast (e. i. the four territories).
Kwame Nkrumah’s Plan of Action.
After searching and organizing an office, Nkrumah drew up far-reaching plans and placed it before the UGCC Working Committee on January 20, 1948. First among the plans were “Shadow Cabinet” and “Organizational Work.” The latter included direct confrontation with the colonial government through organizing strikes, demonstrations and boycotts, contained in one of the resolutions adopted at the 5th Pan-African Congress in Manchester. Also because the scope of the UGCC was limited to the Colony proper, and to a lesser degree with Ashanti, Nkrumah proposed recommendations for the UGCC to embrace the entire Ashanti Province, the Northern Territories and Trans-Volta/Togoland.
The Kwame Nkrumah Countrywide Tour.
While the other members of the Executive/Working Committee of the UGCC were busy attending to their private endeavors, Kwame Nkrumah decided to travel throughout the four territories—the Colony, Ashanti Province, Northern Territories, and Trans/Volta Togoland—under the British colonial government. Notwithstanding the appalling states of roads in many areas, as well as the poor condition of the old car with which he was traveling, Nkrumah was determined to meet, hear, see and rally the people for the anti-colonial struggle. In doing so, he sometimes walked or got a lift with a passing “mammy” lorry when the car broke down, leaving the car with the driver; sometimes, he either walked to the next village or town and on some occasions slept on the roadside in the bush. The most intriguing phenomenon was that Nkrumah, in many instances, carried his suitcase containing his personal belongings on his head. The question is, which of the so-called “founding fathers” were prepared to undergo these hardships, aside from pleasing their colonial masters by “drinking tea, dining and playing tennis with them?” to borrow Sannie Awudu’s words.
Nonetheless, Nkrumah held endless meetings and rallies, delivering hundreds of speeches while organizing branches of the UGCC by himself. Prior to his arrival, there were thirteen (13) non-functioning branches in the Colony. But within six months, Nkrumah had established over five hundred (500) branches in the Colony alone, issuing membership cards with dues paying. Along side these, he established youth organizations, and later placed them under the umbrella of Council of Youth Organization (CYO). During the tours, Nkrumah found feeling of discontent and unrest among the people. It was by no accident, therefore, that Kwame Nkrumah would soon become the face of the UGCC and, by extension, the icon of the anti-colonial struggle in the four territories.
.......................................
Kwame Nkrumah: The ONE and ONLY Founding Father of Ghana - Part II
......................................
The January-28th February Incidence: Kwame Nkrumah’s Role.
Nevertheless, the feeling of the discontent that Nkrumah found would lead to the two major uprisings in the “country” in January and February 1948, fuelling the drive for Ghana’s independence. The two major uprisings coincided with the return of Kwame Nkrumah to the Gold Coast. With the exception of the ex-servicemen’s march, Nkrumah had no knowledge of the plans for the boycott of the Association of West African Merchants (AWAM) and Syrians’ commodities organized by Nii Kwabena Bonne. The end of the Nii Kwabena Boone strike coincided with the ex-servicemen’s peaceful march on February 28 with a petition containing their grievances to the Governor, during which three of its Union members were shot dead with others wounded at Christiansborg Cross-Roads. This incidence subsequently led to the arrest and detention of the six Executive members of the UGCC. Did the UGCC play any role leading to the February 28 uprising leading to their arrest? Earlier, Danquah and Nkrumah had addressed the ex-servicemen on February 20 at Palladium to express solidarity with their concerns. Yet, Danquah’s telegram to the Secretary of State for the Colonies regarding the 28th incidence ended with the words “God Save the King.”
On the other hand, a careful investigation of what appears to be Nkrumah’s calculated statements may possibly shed some light on his complicity in the ex-servicemen’s march. He wrote: “I was certainly aware of the general dissatisfaction of the ex-servicemen and “was acquainted with their Union through my work as general secretary of the UGCC;” “it had been my intention to organize them in due course as an arm of our movement;” and that “I was fully aware that they intended to make peaceful demonstration.” The question is how did he know this? I put this question to the leadership of the Veterans Association of Ghana in my 1990 interview with them at their headquarters in Accra, and the answer I got was revealing. Its Chairman (one of the leaders of the ex-servicemen at the time of the 28 February march) emphatically said it was Kwame Nkrumah who wrote their petition and passed it on to them through Ako Adjei. The Watson Commission also noted that Kwame Nkrumah had circulated the “The Circle” in which he advocated civil disobedience, demonstrations, boycotts, and strikes. So the Watson Commission was right in attributing the two uprisings to Nkrumah’s arrival.
Detention, Watson Commission and The Myth of The Big Six.
The anger of the remaining Ex-servicemen and general public over the death of Sgt Adjetey, Cpl. Attipoe and Private Odartey-Lamptey fueled the violence that erupted leading to massive looting and destruction of public property. Subsequently, Governor Creasy on March 12, 1948, issued Removal Order for the arrest and imprisoned of the six executives of the UGCC, namely Jones William Ofori-Atta, Joseph Danquah, Ako Adjei, Obetsebi Lamptey and Akuffo-Addo and Kwame Nkrumah for being responsible for the riots; hence, they collectively became known as “Big Six.” While in prison, the other five blamed Kwame Nkrumah for the riots and their imprisonment and expressed their regret for inviting Nkrumah to take up the secretary generalship of the UGCC. To this end, they blamed Ako Adjei for his role in recommending Nkrumah to the group. Dr. J. B. Danquah wept saying that he would not have supported the recommendation by Ako Adjei, had he (Danquah) known of Nkrumah’s ideological persuasion.
After their release from prison to appear individually before the Watson Commission of Inquiry regarding the two uprisings, the other five members dissociated themselves from the two uprisings. With the exception of S. E. Ackah, all the Executive members of the UGCC totally disowned Nkrumah’s recommendations, which they had previously approved. But upon cross-examination, several members of them admitted to having received the recommendations from Nkrumah, but went further to clarify that they never associated themselves with it. In other words, Kwame Nkrumah was just and employee of the UGCC, and, as such, they could not entirely be held responsible for his actions. Such acts of betrayal, denial and cowardly behavior are the marks of those pretenders. Certainly, they were traitors worthy of rebuke. “The Big Six” is, thus, a misnomer.
But to acknowledge Kwame Nkrumah as the major driving force in the UGCC at the time, it is worthy of notice to quote the Commission’s observation:
From the internal minutes evidence of the Minute Book of the Working Committee, the Convention did not really get down to business until the arrival of Mr. Kwame Nkrumah on 16th December, 1947, and his assumption of his assumption of the post as Secretary (see the Watson
Commission Report).
So, in essence, the UGCC was an inert organization before Kwame Nkrumah’s arrival to become its General Secretary; thus, it was he who built and breathed life into the UGCC, thereby giving rise to political and national consciousness across the entire country as we know today.
In its inquiry, the Watson Commission also noted that Kwame Nkrumah had circulated the “The Circle” in which he advocated an open defiance to colonialism through civil disobedience, demonstrations, boycotts, and strikes. In effect, this observation and that of the other five members of the UGCC (while in imprison) linked Nkrumah’s activities to the uprisings. Yet, while the two uprisings did not threaten the British colonial government, it caused the replacement of the Burns constitution with the Coussey Constitution in 1951. It also served as a prelude to Kwame Nkrumah-GCTUC Positive Action in 1950 from which the British colonial government never recovered. The Watson Commission was therefore right when it forewarned in its conclusion that KWAME NKRUMAH (and NOT the spineless members of the UGCC) was the “MAN TO BE WATCHED.”
Kwame Nkrumah in a Head-on Collision with the UGCC.
First. After blaming Nkrumah for their imprisonment, as well as denouncing his recommendations during the deliberation of the Watson Commission of Inquiry, the Working Committee of the UGCC opposed everything Nkrumah had to do or say. They brought many charges against Nkrumah based on differences in vision, ideology, philosophy and strategy. One was the word “Comrade” in one of Nkrumah’s letters Obetsebi Lamptey and William Ofori Attah had confiscated from Nkrumah’s office in Saltpond. They quizzed him about the word comrade, since they found it to be synonymous with Communism.
Second. The Working Committee accused Nkrumah of acting outside his authority to set up a school for the dismissed teachers and students on March 28, 1948 for demonstrating against the arrest and detention of the “The Big Six.” The Working Committee objected to the idea when Nkrumah proposed it. In setting up the College, Nkrumah donated half of his monthly salary of twenty five (25) pounds as seed money towards purchasing tins, packing cases and boards as seats and desks for the first batch of ten students. The Ghana College expanded to became the Ghana National College. In fact, they were apprehensive about Nkrumah’s reference to UNITED GOLD COAST and United West Africa in his inaugural speech to the students and teachers of what would become the Ghana National College. “Founding Fathers” indeed!
Third. The Working Committee objected to Nkrumah’s suggestion for the creation of a newspaper as an organ of the movement, because it would get the members of the Committee embroiled in seditious cases. But when Nkrumah went ahead and launched the “Accra Evening News,” they forget about “seditious” cases and founded their own newspaper called the “The Ghana Statesman”
Fourth. Because of the popularity and success of the “Accra Evening News” (in contrast to “The Ghana Statesman”), some members of the Working Committee prevailed on a few civil servants and the Commissioner of Police to bring libel cases against Nkrumah. The libel cases amounted to about ten thousand pounds, which Nkrumah’s supporters raised money to meet the claims of the plaintiffs.
Fifth. J.B. Danquah brought a libel suit against the “Accra Evening News” for publishing an article about the Kyebi ritual murder. Danquah was awarded damages, but not contented with the awards, he went ahead to buy the rights to the paper. In this situation, Kwame Nkrumah outwitted J.B. Danquah. Thus, “The Head Press” which published the “Accra Evening News” was instantly taken over by the “Heal Press” and published the newspaper under a new name, the “Ghana Evening News.”
Sixth. The Working Committee demanded an immediate dismissal of Nkrumah’s private secretary on the grounds that Nkrumah appointed him without their prior approval and was being paid out of the UGCC’s funds.
Seventh. To buttress their suggestion to Nkrumah to resign from his job as Secretary General of the UGCC, they offered him one hundred pounds to return to England.
Eighth. Realizing that Nkrumah was the key figure in the movement with strong following, and fearful that his removal from the UGCC would lead to a complete collapse of the movement, they moved Nkrumah to the post of treasurer.
Ninth. The Working Committee accused Nkrumah of establishing a Youth Study Group at Osu in Accra with Komla Gbedemah as its Chairman. This would later embody a nationalist youth movement with the Ashanti Youth Association and the Ghana Youth Association of Sekondi, and become known as the Committee on Youth Organization (CYO). The CYO, Nkrumah explained to the Working Committee, was to serve as the youth wing of the UGCC, yet they still objected to its formation. They found the CYO’s manifesto, “Self-Government Now” a threat to the program of the UGCC, “Self-Government within the shortest possible time.” As aristocrats, they were nurturing the hope that their gentle approach would be rewarded by new concessions from their colonial masters which would enable them to fulfill their aspirations. Hence, they opposed the CYO as it was composed of the less privileged and radical section of the populace, and who were articulating the economic, social and political aspirations of the rank and file. More importantly, considering themselves as the noblemen, they felt a little uneasy by Nkrumah’s open and simple manner approach to the ordinary people.
All the while, Nkrumah and his Comrades were working on turning the CYO into a political party. In the CPP’s revolutionary program and forceful demand for “Self-Government NOW” that followed, the UGCC became a lame-duck association as the local branches which Nkrumah had set up either converted to the CPP or collapsed. Subsequently, the Working Committee of the UGCC meeting in Saltpond in 1949 passed a vote of NO CONFIDENCE in DR. J. B. DANQUAH’s LEADERSHIP. So why the sudden hullabaloo about one of Ghana’s foremost traitors?
The CPP as the First National Political Party.
The CPP’s Six-Point Program, prior to its launching, included realization of unity of the chiefs and people of the Colony, Ashanti, Northern Territories and Trans-Volta, and the achievement of full “Self-Government Now.” The emphasis on the realization of a United Gold Coast, in particular, was to have a far-reaching impact on the results of the 1956 United Nation’s Plebiscite regarding the fate of the people in the UN trusteeship.
After the formal resignation from the UGCC, Nkrumah launched the CPP on June 12, 1949 in Accra to an audience of about sixty people, with demand for “Self-government Now.” They included people from all the four provinces under the British colonial administration. Nkrumah “declared himself, and his very life blood, if need be to the cause of Ghana.” Remember the three “SSS” (Service, Sacrifice and Suffering) mentioned above? Critical to the successes of the CPP were WOMEN. From the birth of the CPP, they were the topmost field organizers of the CPP. Thus, with women as effective field organizers, the CPP went on to build an unprecedented grass-root campaign by building cells with structures in all towns and villages across the entire country. Consequently, the membership of the CPP by 1950 swelled up to about one million, unknown in the history of the country at the time.
And what did the UGCC aristocrats do? They resulted to name callings, referring to the CPP as a party of “verandah boys, hooligans, and communists.” Prior to the name callings, Obetsebi Lamptey, during the (UGCC) Working Committee’s meeting in Palladium on June 16, 1949, questioned why the majority Ga people in Accra should allow themselves to be led by” a “stranger.” Though the remarks caused the meeting to end in uproar and confusion against him, we must ask if these are the attributes we expect from “founding fathers”?
The Coussey Constitution.
The All African Coussey Committee included “The Big Six,” exclusive of Nkrumah. The new constitution still fell far short of the CPP's call for full self-government. Executive power remained in the hands of the British Governor to appoint three Ex-Officio portfolios for Defense and External Affairs, Finance and Justice, and Attorney General. This, to Nkrumah, meant that the Constitution was not designed for the Africans to take over the Government. It was formulated as an adaptation of the principle of indirect rule, whereby change would come through and with the consent of the traditional authorities.
Enamored in Edmund Burke’s political ideology of rule by the preordained elite, the Committee’s Constitution/Report stipulated that only those citizens with sufficient wages and property would be allowed to vote. In his response, Nkrumah organized “People Representative Assembly” comprising trade unions, farmers, women, youth, unemployed school leavers and others. The Assembly called for a universal suffrage without regard to property qualification, a separate house of chiefs, and demanded a self-government constitution. So when the British colonial government rejected the CPP self-government constitution, Kwame Nkrumah organized the Positive Action with full participation by the Gold Coast Trade Union Congress (GCTUC).
The Positive Action and the Road to Ghana’s Independence.
It was Frederick Douglas who once said that “power concedes nothing without a demand.” With this mind, Nkrumah said that colonialism had never been overthrown without a bitter and vigorous struggle. News of the intended Positive Action caused the Ga State Council to summon Nkrumah to appear before them to explain what he meant. Also present were the Joint-Provincial Council of Chiefs. Surprisingly, J. B. Danquah and other ex-UGCC members were present. The Chiefs, led by Sir Tsibu Darku and Nana Ofori Attah II, expressed their total disapproval of the demands of the Peoples Assembly. Ofori Attah’s speech, in particular was “abusive couched in language in an undignified language,” Nkrumah described. In deploying the Positive Action, the Joint-Provincial Council of Chiefs characterized its organizers as “grasshopper leaders.”
But when Nkrumah avowed that the Positive Action would go on as planned if the request for the People’s Representative Assembly was still rejected, J. B. Danquah responded in undignified and sinister ways. He said: “It is obvious that the law, as far as Kwame Nkrumah is concerned, must go according to him. It is my opinion that those who go against [colonial] constitutional authority MUST EXCPECT TO PAY FOR IT WITH THEIR NECKS.” How and by who? one may ask.
The colonial government on its part, asked for the suspension of the Positive Action. On January 8 1950, Kwame Nkrumah declared “Positive Action,” which called for a general strike, and non-cooperation with the colonial Government. A state of emergency was subsequently declared throughout the whole country, and a curfew imposed.. Thereafter, the office of the “Evening News” was raided, closed down by the police, and banned. Syrian, Lebanese and British nationals were armed as special constables to help the colonial government to restore order. Two African policemen died during a confrontation with an ex-servicemen’s demonstration. Nkrumah and his associates (including women) were arrested, tried and imprisoned for instigating the strike. Nkrumah was sentenced to a three-year sentence for public disorder and sedition.
Predictably, Dr. J. B. Danquah condemned the Positive Action “as an act of treachery.” His instant joy over the arrest of Nkrumah and other leading members of the CPP ended in these words: pataku (wolf) has been driven away.”
To Be Continued!!
......................................
Kwame Nkrumah: The ONE And ONLY Founding Father Of Ghana 2014 Independence Day Special (Part III)
......................................
From Prison to Leader of Government Business
While Nkrumah was being treated as a criminal in prison, crowds gathered daily in front of the James Fort chanting the Party’s songs/anthems, “There is Victory for US” etc. Nkrumah, on the other hand, was busy writing on sheets of toilet paper in darkness outlying the party’s strategies on the next level of the struggle, as well as rewriting the Party’s manifesto. Notwithstanding its opposition to the Coussey Constitution, the CPP changed its mind and contested the first general elections in the history of the Gold Coast on February 8, 1951. Not only did Nkrumah win the Accra Central constituency by obtaining 22, 780 votes out of registered 23, 122 voters, but also the CPP won a sweeping victory by pulling 39 of the 43 popularly elected seats. Subsequently, Nkrumah was released from prison on February 12, 1951 to become Leader of Government Business.
Shortly after the CPP victory in the 1951 election, the UGCC collapsed. So all along, “Kwame Nkrumah was the UGCC and the UGCC was Kwame Nkrumah.”
Nonetheless, on October 14, 1951, Nkrumah, while a Leader of Government Business, invited all the political parties (including J. B. Danquah and Obetsebi Lamptey) to join the CPP in a conference to plan a nation-wide campaign of Positive Action, should the British Government “rejects a motion for self-government now,” but none of them responded. In the meantime, due to pressures from Nkrumah, the Governor, on March 5, 1952 addressed the Legislative Assembly and declared that the Leader of Government Business should disappear from the constitution and be replaced by the office of Prime Minister. Accordingly, Nkrumah was elected by a secret ballot in the Assembly on March 10 to the office of Prime Minister. Not surprisingly, Dr. Danquah characterized it as “window dressing.”
The differences between Kwame Nkrumah political ideology and economic philosophy and those J. B. Danquah manifested during the 1951 Cocoa Marketing Board Amendment debate in the Legislative Assembly. While the CPP, led by Ohene Djan, argued for state control of the Gold Coast Marketing Board to generate revenue from the sale of cocoa to promote the development in the country (like the Adomi Bridge, Volta River project, Tema Harbor and township, Okomfo Anokye Hospital, democratization of education and health services, construction of the University of Ghana campus at Legon, Kumasi College of Technology (now KNUST), Medical School, road construction etc.), the Opposition, led by Dr. Danquah, opposed it saying that the bill was in violation of the full enjoyment of private property; hence, the property-owning political party (UGCC, GCP, NLM, UP, PP, NPP).
The 1954 and 1956 General Elections.
On June 10, 1953, Kwame Nkrumah tabled a motion in the Assembly on constitutional reform, popularly known as the “Motion of Destiny,” in which Nkrumah demanded self-government. This resulted in the 1954 general election on June 15, 1954, which the CPP won 72 out of the 104 parliamentary seats. The Ghana Congress Party (GCP), formed by Prof. Busia in May 1952, only won one out of the 104 seats. Dr. J.B. Danquah (also of the Ghana Congress Party) lost the parliamentary seat in the Central Akyem Abuakwa constituency. (Danquah’s election to the Legislative Assembly in 1951 was through the municipal/and electoral college, and not by popular vote.) Like the UGCC, Ghana Congress Party collapsed.
In 1954, the UN Trusteeship Visiting Team recommended that a plebiscite be held in the Trans-Volta under British rule for the people to decide whether they wanted a union with the imminent Gold Coast’s independence. Due to the 1948 Nkrumah Nation-wide tour, his United Gold Coast agenda, as well as the CPP campaign in the province, majority of the people voted to cast their lot with the new country Ghana. S.G. Antor (conceivably, one of the Founding Fathers) of the Togoland Congress strongly campaigned it.
That notwithstanding, the anticipated independence in 1956 as promised by the Van Lare Constitution was bludgeoned with the birth of the ethnocentric National Liberation Movement (NLM) in the Asante Region. Launched (amidst slaughtering a sheep, the firing of muskets and chanting Asante war songs) by Bafour Osei Akoto with Prof. Kofi Abrefa Busia as its leader, the NLM accused the CPP government of using the cocoa farmers’ money to develop the coastal region or Colony. Thus, the Asante “cocoa farmers would be better off if they would manage their own internal affairs.” But the real reason behind the launching of this anti-political party movement was to provide another opportunity for the opposition parties (NLM, NPP, Togoland Congress etc.) to punctuate the attainment of Ghana’s independence under Kwame Nkrumah and his CPP government that year. In doing so, they (including J. B. Danquah, Obetsebi and other members of the defunct UGCC and GCP) demanded federalism by boycotting all talks, forums, meetings etc. The British government yielded to the intrigues of the Opposition and decided to hold another general election in 1956 for the people to decide whether they wanted a “unitary government” or a “federal form of government.” In spite of the NLM terrorist acts, the CPP, again, won another decisive victory in the July 1956 election.
Prior to the election, Dr. Busia had written to inform the Governor that, “in accordance with the constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, the National Liberation Movement and its allies will expect Your Excellency to call upon Doctor K. A. Busia, their Parliamentary Leader, to form a Government should they win more than 52 seats at the election.” Yet after Nkrumah’s CPP won the 1956 general election, Prof. Busia produced another theory saying that no constitution would be acceptable unless it was “favored by a majority of the people of every region into which the Gold Coast” was divided.
Dr. J. B. Danquah’s Doctrine of Independence from the British Empire
In his March 6, 1944 speech marking the centenary of the infamous Bond of 1844, Danquah expressed his unflinching desire to place a self-governing Ghana under the British empire. He said: “I AM SOMETIMES MUCH SURPRISED WHEN I SEE MANY OF MY COUNTRYMEN TERRIFIED BY THE USE OF THAT WORD, ‘SELF-GOVERNMENT.’ THEY ARE TERRIFIED OF IT BEACUSE THEY THINK IT MEANS THE DESIRE TO BREAK AWAY FROM THE [BRITISH] EMPIRE AND BECOME INDEPENDENT OF THE BRITISH. IF IT COMES TO THAT, IF IT COMES TO A DECION TO BREAK AWAY FROM THE BRITISH CONNECTION, I WOULD BE THE LAST [PERSON] TO EXPRESS SUCH A TERRIFIC WISH” (see the Historic Speeches of J. B. Danquah).
In his July 13, 1959 letter to Mr. Brockway in London, J. B. Danquah said, “I was against any election as premature and favoured Constituent Assembly,” where the pre-ordained rulers would be selected to rule (see Historic Speeches of Danquah). To understand Danquah’s reason for disregarding the electoral process and disrespecting the CPP victories and Nkrumah’s government, we must go to the root of Danquah’s political ideology. Aside from being a “tame student of Kant’s moral philosophy” (Danquah, Vol. 1), Danquah (Busia included) echoed and practiced Edmund Burke’s ideology of rule by the preordained elite. Burke’s political philosophy was developed at Oxford University into an ideology that the elite is born to rule the world. Thus, it does society great harm, Burke reasoned, if the masses (affirming Aristotle’s views that the masses should have been slaves) are allowed to participate in governance by voting. So, since Kwame Nkrumah was a goldsmith’s son with some “NTAFO” (Northerners) in his 1951 government, Dr. Danquah remarked, and since the CPP was voted into power mostly by the “masses,” the Danquah-Busia camp considered the CPP government illegitimate and dangerous to the society; hence, it must be destroyed by violence.
In fact, Danquah’s elitism was manifested in his distaste and contempt for “this thing of masses,” whom he viewed as “only individuals” and dismissed their aspirations as “emotions.”
The Danquah-Busia Camp’s Style of Democracy.
1. On April 5, 1955, the Opposition led by Busia and Modesto Apaloo walked out of the Assembly, just after a Motion on a Select Committee to examine the whole question of the federal system of government had been seconded. In their opinion, the Select Committee, comprising some CPP parliamentarians or the “homeless tramp and jackals” (Liberator, March 1956), was incompetent to deal with national matters.
2. Bafour Osei Akoto and the chiefs in the “National Liberation Movement” did not want their movement to be called “Party,” since “party politics were contrary to the tenets of traditional rule.” Similarly, on March 14, 1956, Danquah and his brother Nana Ofori Atta II told a visiting parliamentarian delegation to Kyebi that “PARTY POLITICS is an alien political form which” had “created civil strife and violent dissension between father and son.” Accordingly, if the British showed no understanding, Akyem Abuakwa would secede from the country “as a sovereign and independent state with the only rival of the Ashanti country.”
3. During the Jackson Commission, Danquah categorically denounced the authority of the Kwame Nkrumah government saying that “the people of Akyem are not subjects to the laws of Ghana (Jackson Commission’s Report, 1958). So, his recourse was to do what?
4. Dr. Busia’s NLM referred to the CPP supporters in Asante as “those who belong to no family or clan, those who are strangers, not properly trained to appreciate the value of the true and noble Akan” (Liberator, December 20, 1955). A Party of “Founding Fathers?”
5. The Opposition led by Dr. Busia, refused to meet with Sir Frederick Bourne in Kumase, sent by the British government to resolve the impasse between the CPP government and Opposition. And when the government issued its constitutional proposal for the country’s independence in the April White Paper of 1956, again, the Opposition boycotted its proceedings. So, how would later-day apologists lump the Opposition leaders together with Nkrumah as “Founding Fathers?”
5. On November 20, 1956, leaders of the NLM and NPP sent a resolution to the Secretary for Colonies in London, demanding a separate independence for Asante and Northern Territories. Yesterday’s Secessionists, today’s Founding Fathers!
Terrorist Acts of the Danquah-Busia Camp.
6. . Dr. K. A. Busia and the NLM warned the British government in August of 1955 of grisly aftereffects, if the country attained independence under the CPP government. Hence, the Danquah-Busia camp resorted to the undemocratic methods and terrorist acts and bomb attacks to overthrow the democratically elected government of Kwame Nkrumah, before and after Ghana’s independence. Yesterday’s Terrorists, Today’s “Founding Fathers”!
7. On November 10, 1955, Nkrumah’s house was bombed while he was resting and working in his house with his secretary and others because of a terrible cold. Danquah-
Busia-Obetsebi Lamptey’s style of democracy!!!
8. On the day that the CPP reopened its regional office in Kumase after fourteen months of closure, Prof. Busia’s NLM drove a jeep past the crowd and fired shots into it and wounded several people; it also killed a pregnant woman. Earlier, Krobo Edusei’s sister had been shot dead as she was preparing food in the backyard for her children; while Edusei’s wife had survived a bomb blast. Yesterday’s Murderous, Today’s “Founding Fathers”!
9. On the eve of Ghana’s Independence on March 6, 1957, the Ewe Unificationists, led by S.G. Antor (Danquah’s buddy), formed themselves into a ragged guerilla army in Alavanyo and prepared for armed insurrection with homemade guns against the CPP government. The Governor-General sent troops to the region to put down the revolt. Yes, S. G. Antor (J. B. Danquah’s loyal buddy, an ally of Prof. Busia, and one of President Kufour’s heroes) by his (Antor’s) terrorist acts also passes to be one of the “Founding Father.”
Sabotaging Ghana’s Independence: Dr. Busia and the NLM.
10. On August 3, 1956, the Opposition leaders boycotted the constitutional debate tabled by the CPP government regarding Ghana’s independence. “Founding Fathers” indeed!
11. Again, when the Parliament formally opened after the 1956 general election to deliberate on Nkrumah’s Motion of Independence, Dr. Busia and the NLM, and NPP’s parliamentarians were absent. Reprehensible Saboteurs and not “Founding Fathers”!
12. When the British Governor, in his opening speech, introduced a Bill declaring that the Gold Coast would be a sovereign and independent State within the Commonwealth, Prof. Busia and the Opposition criticized the proposal saying that it was premature. Saboteurs and not “Founding Fathers”!
13. Before independence, Dr. Busia traveled to London to make a plea to the British Government to deny granting independence to Ghana, “because the country is not ready for parliamentary democracy.” He continued, “We still need you in the Gold Coast. Your experiment there [Gold Coast] is not complete. Sometimes I wonder why you seem such in a hurry to wash you hands off us.” What a Traitor!!!
Opposing and Attacking the Name Ghana and Flag for the New Nation
14. When the British Government conceded to Ghana’s independence on March 6, 1957, and Nkrumah chose for Ghana’s flag, Red for the blood of the martyrs, Gold for wealth, Green for the rich land and the Black Star in the center representing the freedom of Africans on the continent and in the Diaspora, Danquah-Busia camp opposed it.
15. The Danquah-Busia camp had previously associated themselves with the name Ghana, yet when Kwame Nkrumah proposed it (GHANA) as the name for the new nation-state, they not only opposed, but they also attacked it. How can saboteurs become “Founding Fathers?”
Given all that have been discussed above, how on earth can any living sane person lump Kwame Nkrumah together with the fictitiously labeled “Big- Six” and/or ex-UGCC’s Working Committee members etc., (who strongly opposed, condemned, sabotaged and distanced themselves from anything associated with Nkrumah, as well as bitterly decried him, bombed his house, terrorized members of his CPP, attempted secession from the country, and opposed the name, “Ghana” for the new nation-state and its flag, from 1948 to Ghana’s independence on March 1957) as “Founding Fathers?” Where were they on the dais where Kwame Nkrumah stood and declared the Independence of Ghana, followed by the National Anthem as the rising FLAG of Ghana was replacing the downward British flag on the eve of Ghana’s independence? Also, where were they in the banquet hall where all those who mattered assembled to celebrate Ghana’s independence? The answer? They were busy plotting to make the new nation-state ungovernable, and overthrow to the CPP Government by violence.
History, as a social science, is not a conjured tale, but an analysis of observable and verifiable invents. The records of Ghana’s political history are stored in print and electronic media of the time, primary materials and archives for all rational prople to look into. And until new data descends from MARS, KWAME NKRUMAH remains and will remain the ONE and ONLY FOUNDING FATHER of MODERN GHANA.
rashad 10 years ago
thanks bro. dat was well said. pls email or cal me.
thanks bro. dat was well said. pls email or cal me.
agyei 10 years ago
water problem is a sign of bad leadership. how can water generation plants work effectively in the wake of us springing from dum to so
water problem is a sign of bad leadership. how can water generation plants work effectively in the wake of us springing from dum to so
pin 10 years ago
bush fire is a national canker. laws of land and forest protection must be reviewd
bush fire is a national canker. laws of land and forest protection must be reviewd
Strong partisanship started in Ghana when Kwame Nkrumah divided the nation into patriots and traitors. Patriots were those who accepted that he should be president for life, practice one party state and communism and indulge ...
read full comment
Kwame Nkrumah: The ONE and ONLY Founding Father of Ghana - Part I ...2014 Independence Day Special..
......................................
ntroduction.
That Kwame Nkrumah is the founder of modern Ghana is not debatabl ...
read full comment
thanks bro. dat was well said. pls email or cal me.
water problem is a sign of bad leadership. how can water generation plants work effectively in the wake of us springing from dum to so
bush fire is a national canker. laws of land and forest protection must be reviewd