The Case of Akyem Abuakwa, Ghana (1912–1943)

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332742747

The Politics of Property Rights: The Case of Akyem Abuakwa, Ghana (1912–1943)

Article · April 2019 DOI: 10.14321/jwestafrihist.5.1.0083

CITATIONS READS 0 77

1 author:

Emmanuel Ofosu-Mensah Ababio University of Ghana

31 PUBLICATIONS 190 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mining in Ghana and its connection with mining in Brazil View project

migration in west africa in the 21st century View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Emmanuel Ofosu-Mensah Ababio on 22 May 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. The Politics of Property Rights: The Case of Akyem Abuakwa, Ghana (1912–1943)

Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah

Journal of West African History, Volume 5, Number 1, Spring 2019, pp. 83-113 (Article)

Published by Michigan State University Press

For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/723788

Access provided at 22 May 2019 10:56 GMT from University of Cape Coast article VVVV

The Politics of Property Rights: The Case of Akyem Abuakwa, Ghana (1912–1943) emmanuel ababio ofosu-mensah University of Ghana

abstract Some political historians, such as Rathbone and Firmin-Sellers, have argued that some traditional rulers under colonial rule introduced new property rights by reinventing tradition and enforcing them within their traditional states to satisfy their own parochial interest. This article employs archival, secondary, and oral sources to critically clarify the exceptional case of Nana Ofori Atta I’s to put forward a contrary view. It argues that Nana Ofori Atta I, with great political will where his predecessors failed, came up with some pragmatic, practical, and problem-solving measures in order to make the indigenous concept of land ownership beneficial for the larger community. résumé Des historiens politiques, tels que Rathbone et Firmin-Sellers, ont sou- tenu que certains dirigeants traditionnels sous domination coloniale ont instauré de nouveaux droits de propriété en réinventant la tradition et les ont imposés au sein de leurs États traditionnels pour satisfaire leur propre intérêt local. Cet article emploie des sources archivistiques, secondaires et orales pour clarifier de manière critique le cas exceptionnel de Nana Ofori Atta I afin de faire valoir un point de vue opposé. Il affirme que Nana Ofori Atta I, grâce à une forte volonté politique, là où ses prédécesseurs ont échoué, a proposé des mesures de résolution

Copyright © 2019 Michigan State University. Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah, “The Politics of Property Rights: The Case of Akyem Abuakwa, Ghana (1912–1943),” Journal of West African History, Vol. 5, Iss. 1 (2019): 83–114. ISSN 2327-1868. All rights reserved.

83 84  Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah

pragmatiques et pratiques dans le but de rendre le concept autochtone de pro- priété foncière avantageux pour la communauté dans son ensemble.

Introduction

Property rights can be defined as “the power to limit the ability of other persons to enjoy the benefits to be secured from the use and enjoyment of material goods.”1 The enforcement of those rights ensures that the right holders are the sole bene- ficiaries of any given property to the total exclusion of all others in any capacity. According to Gibbs and Bromley, property rights are the “bundle of rights” held by one individual in relation to others.2 Vogelgesang also explained the phe- nomenon as the control over a resource (e.g., land) that must be seen as a web of entitlements between persons, rather than merely the possession of something.3 In economic terms, property rights are a bundle of entitlements defining the owner’s rights, privileges, and limitations concerning the use of a resource. In real terms, they are rights individuals exercise over the goods and services they possess including their labor. Property rights can be vested either in individual, as in market economies, or in the state, as in centrally planned socialist economies. There are also common property rights where individuals have claims on collective goods as members of recognized groups. However, in all cases, property rights are important because their nature determines resource allocation in a world of conflicting user interests.

Transformation of Property Rights

The transformation of property rights involves a redistribution of both wealth and power. It is, therefore, an inherently conflictual (i.e., adversarial) process. Individuals and groups in society likely will mobilize to articulate a new distributional definition of property rights (and so claim a privileged place in society) or argue against a change in the already favorable status quo. These people may lobby state actors directly to capture the state’s coercive power and enforce their preferred system. Or, they may seek to create an alternative source of authority, enforcing property rights privately or at a local level. In either case, the subjects’ actions are a crucial determinant of which system is enforced, and whether that system is secure.4 The state alone does not dictate the outcome. Throughout Ghana, the imposition of colonial rule coincided with a rapid appreciation of land values. Officials of the colonial state announced that they would uphold customary land tenure and delegated enforcement powers to The Politics of Property Rights  85 the chiefs of the colony’s many traditional states. These mandates established the framework within which indigenous actors battled one another to claim that valuable resources by redefining property rights. Yet this situation did not exist everywhere on the Gold Coast. This article shows that Nana Ofori Atta I of the Akyem Abuakwa State redefined its property rights system for the benefit of the entire populace.

The Akyem Abuakwa State: Geography, Traditions of Origin and Land Ownership

The modern Akyem territory comprises over 3,120 square miles.5 It shares bor- ders with Kwahu to the north and northwest and with Krobo, New Dwaben, and Akwapim to the east and southeast. In the south, Akyem Abuakwa shares a border with Agona and with Akyem Kotoku in the west. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, missionary and official reports described much of Abuakwa land as “uninhabited,” “unpeopled,” or thinly populated and grossly “underutilized.”6 The implication is that by the late nineteenth century Abuakwa land had a very low population density in relation to the size of the kingdom and land available for cultivation. Available land exceeded the needs of the Abuakwa population and was not commercialized.7 Abuakwa land was principally used for the mining of gold and subsistence farming and hunting. The territory came into the possession of the state through force of arms.

Origins of Akan Land Tenure System

The common mode of land acquisition in Akanland of Ghana in ancient times was by conquest and this process normally took two forms. First, a kinship group would arrive in an area and succeed in expelling the original inhabitants by force and occupy said area. Second, a vast territorial area could be subdued through war and brought under a particular political authority. Both of these methods were employed by the Akan, in general, and by the Akyem Abuakwa, in particular, in their territorial expansion and to a large extent shaped their land tenure system.9 In the seventeenth century, a party of refugees from Adanse led by Ofori Panin settled in the area to the north of the Birem River in what is now Akyem Abuakwa.10 At the time of their arrival, most of what is now Akyem Abuakwa was part of the Akwamu Empire with its capital at Nyanoase. Asamankese was then an important town whose stool was next in position to that of the king of Akwamu.11 86  Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah

FIGURE. 1 Map of Akyem Abuakwa. Stretching from Gyegyeti and Kankang in the north to Adeiso in the southwest, Akyem Abuakwa spans the Nsawam-Nkawkaw railway with the greater part of the state lying west of it. Akyem consists of three subdivisions: Abuakwa, Kotoku, and Bosome. The largest subdivision, Abuakwa, occupies about two-thirds of Akyem territory and measures approximately 1,870 square miles.8 Kotoku and Bosome share the remaining third to the west. The Politics of Property Rights  87

The Akyem settled on the western border of the Akwamu Empire, and beginning in the mid-seventeenth century, they began to threaten the integrity of the Empire through a series of incursions into its northern districts.12 The Akyem kept up the pressure on the northwestern border till 1730 when, acting in alliance with rebellious subjects of Akwamu, they overran the whole of the western part of the Empire, including the original Akwamu country, which was thus lost forever to the Akwamu stool.13 The conquered lands were subsequently divided between Kotoku and Abuakwa with the biggest portion going to the latter. Within seventy years, some members of the Asona family groups moved from the Banso area onto the evacuated lands and were joined by some immigrants from Adanse. Because of the Okyenhene’s contributions to the war effort, the Ofori Panin (Paramount) Stool claimed ownership of the conquered Akwamu lands, and took “possession of all the Aquamboe Croms,”14 though it was customary to distribute some of the war spoils to the subordinate chiefs as a reward or to immigrants as grants. For example, the leader of the Oyoko clan of Asiakwa, on his arrival from Asante, reported to the Okyenhene at Banso, and after swearing the oath of allegiance to the Ofori stool was granted part of the conquered Akwamu lands for the clan’s relocation.15 The paramountcy could also return granted lands to the stool. In 1865, when the stool occupants of Asafo, Kukurantumi, and Maase proved stubborn in their dispute over the lands from Adweso (a suburb of Koforidua) to the neighborhood of Ahabante (near Tinkon), Okyenhene Amoako Atta I declared in-council that those lands to have been returned to the direct possession of the Ofori (paramount) stool.16 The Okyenhene’s right of ultimate ownership of Abuakwa tribal lands was a symbol of the corporative existence of the state whereas the subchiefs’ claim of right of immediate control and administration of the stool lands was directly attached to their stools. In times of war, the subchiefs took up their responsi- bilities of fighting together with their subjects in defense of the tribal lands and paramount stool. In certain instances, portions of tribal lands attached to the individual stools were conquered on the initiative of the substools themselves and at their own expense.17 The rights of the paramountcy and subchiefs over land usually resulted in conflicts between Okyenhene Ofori Atta I and Asamankese chief Kwaku Amoah. The former claimed that all lands in the states belonged to him whereas the latter considered himself as “the true heir and owner . . . rather than a caretaker of . . . Asamankese stool land.” The conflicting claims of the substools and the paramount stool were finally resolved in a compromise whereby the tribal lands of Akyem Abuakwa, as elsewhere in the Akan world, came to be regarded as “owned” in the first instance by the substools to which they were directly attached and 88  Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah

only indirectly by the paramount stool. A. B. Ellis commented in his report in this respect that, “The land of the tribe as a whole is attached to the stool of the king, and cannot alienated from it. In each province or district the land is attached in the first instance to the stool of the paramount chief, subject to the rights of the king.”18 The effect of the agreement was that during the nineteenth century the Okyenhene refrained from making grants of portions of lands attached directly to substools without prior consultation with and consent of the village or divisional chief concerned. For example, the Gyadam lands, which formed part of the Abompe stool lands, were granted by Queen Dokuaa to the Kotoku exiles in 1824 only after the queen had secured the consent of Odikro Kwabena Addo and his elders. In the case of the Dwaben exiles who entered Akyem Abuakwa in 1874–75, Okyenhene Amoako Atta I expressly told Captain Hughes that the lands that the government sought for their rehabilitation belonged to the Kukurantumi people. As a consequence, Adontenhene Ampaw was summoned to Kyebi for negotiations.19 On few occasions, certain chiefs appear to have made grants of portions of their stool lands without reference to the Okyenhene. For example, following their expulsion from Gyandam in 1860, the Kotokus negotiated and received a portion of Wankyi stool lands for their relocation without the prior knowledge of Okyenhene Atta Obuom.20 The Asamankese stool rented out portions of its stool land to Ga farmers in the 1890s. When in 1894 James Town Mantse Kojo Ababio protested against the rent because it appeared it had not been authorized by the Okyenhene, he was told that, “Kwaku Amoa was the owner of the land and that it descended to him from his ancestors and as such it was not necessary for him [Okyenhene] to authorize him to get tolls where he used to get something to eat.”21 The Okyenhene’s acceptance of the claim of his subchiefs did not, however, mean the surrender or loss of his rights over tribal lands. The subchiefs duly recognized his right to share in the wealth produced from the land. The Okyenhene was, therefore, entitled to a portion of snail harvest known as awafee.22 In addi- tion, he was entitled to part of bosre (leg of game); a one-third share of Ahudeɛ (treasure-trove); and one-third share of epo (a nugget of gold valued upwards of £2).23

Citizens’ Rights to Land

From the 1730s onwards, ownership of Akyem Abuakwa lands has been vested in the community as a whole. Basel missionaries Weiner and Huppenbauer observed in 1886 that, “in Akyem, legally, the entire country stands open to each individual and belongs by no means to the king.”24 Land was conceived by the people of The Politics of Property Rights  89

Akyem Abuakwa as communally owned, and the chiefs and elders acted as care- takers or trustees of land on behalf of the people.25 This was evident in Nana Ofori Atta I’s statement that “I conceive of land as belonging to a large family of which many are dead, a few are living and countless are yet unborn.”26 J. B. Dan- quah confirmed the missionaries’ observation when he wrote that “Land in Akim Abuakwa belongs to no particular person. All the stool lands in the state are held as communal property by the stools in trust and to the use of the people of Akim Abu a k w a .” 27

Commercial Farming

Oil Palm Trees

Land values began to appreciate in Abuakwa in the mid-nineteenth and early twentieth due to commercial farming. Portions of Abuakwa lands were sold to Krobo and Akuapem farmers for commercial farming. In the second half of the nineteenth century commercial farming accelerated the pace of land alienation in the state. The Industrial Revolution had created a high demand for palm oil to lubricate machines in Europe resulting in a rise in palm oil production in West Africa from 1,000 tons in 1810 to over 40,000 tons in 1885.28 Palm oil became a major cash crop produced in the Gold Coast for the European market with the Krobo of the southeastern Gold Coast one of the major producers.29 A further increase in the demand for palm oil and the lucrativeness of the trade resulted in an influx of Krobo and Akuapem farmers into Abuakwaland in order to purchase virgin forests for the cultivation of oil palm trees. The Akyem Abuakwa chiefs responded to the demand for their lands by engaging in reckless sales of stool lands during the second half of the nineteenth century and the first decade of the twentieth century, because they had become indigent after the abolition and emancipation of slaves and pawns and the introduction of legitimate trade.30 The first of such Krobo purchases of land from their neighbors began around the 1820s; by the 1860s they had extended the frontier of the purchased land about ten miles from the Akuapem scarp to the Ponpon River. Between 1860 and 1890, they acquired about 120 square miles of Abuakwa territory from the Begoro Stool, thus extending their boarders from Ponpon to Odumatta.31 The reckless disposal of Begoro lands had, by the early decades of the twentieth century, enabled the Krobo to extend their frontiers from River Bisa to Akrum, within eight miles from Begoro. Thus, they achieved the goal of extending their oil palm, and later, cocoa plantations.32 Akuapem oil palm farmers also acquired leasehold 90  Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah

interests in Abuakwa lands near Ahabante from the stool of Kukurantumi for the cultivation of palm trees. By 1865, therefore, the Akuapem paid tributes in palm oil to Nana Ampaw for the use of Abuakwa parcels of land under his jurisdiction.33 Okyenhene Amoako Atta I subsequently repossessed the lands on the left bank of the Densu River from Ahabante to Adweso in 1865 and sold it outright to Akuapem farmers.34 By the beginning of the twentieth century, impoverished Abuakwa subchiefs intensified their reckless alienation of Abuakwa lands for their personal advantage without the consent of neither their own Council of Elders nor the Okyenhene. In a complaint dated May 15, 1907, the elders and people of Begoro accused Begoro- hene Gyamera (1905–1908) of selling stool lands for £3,000, for which no proper accounts were rendered. And written records that were kept by him revealed that he received £1,232 of that amount was paid, although the elders and the people were not informed.35 In October and November 1907, Gyamera again alienated lands to the Krobo for £766.36 These unauthorized land sales became a political issue. The combined effect of indiscriminate sales of lands and misappropriation of public (stool) funds was popular disenchantment with the Abuakwa chiefs by the youth (asafo), which had already escalated in the first decade of the twentieth century. Thomas Yaw Kani and the youth who constituted the Asafo groups led the community in a demand for accountability, which culminated in a series of community–chief confrontations. By 1917, the asafo in Begoro, Apinaman, and Kwaben had destooled their respective chiefs for the indiscriminate sale of land. On January 13, 1908, an enquiry instituted into the conduct of Gyam- era’s land sales culminated in his destoolment. His successor, Kwaku Tupiri (1908–1913) suffered the same fate on December 26, 1913.37 Okyenhene Amoako Atta III was also destooled by his own elders on charges of living a life of reckless extravagance at the expense of the state’s resources.38 Between 1904 and 1926, the Colonial Office recorded some 109 cases of destoolment in the Colony. It is important to note that the destoolments were not only engineered by the Asafo and ordinary community members but also by political opportunists intent on usurping political power.

Cocoa Production

The introduction of cocoa production intensified the crisis of land alienation in Abuakwa. In the 1890s, cocoa cultivation reached Akyem Abuakwa from the Akuapem scarp where it started; by 1900, most of Abuakwa lands west of Densu River had been alienated to Akuapem and Krobo farmers who were later joined by the Shai, Fante, and Ga.39 Muller described the rush for and leasing out of The Politics of Property Rights  91

Abuakwa lands in 1893: “People from Accra, Abokobi, Aburi and Mampong are all the while moving their farms towards Akyem soil. Many parcels of land have been sold to people from the coastal districts by the Akyems. They are moving into the vicinity of Kukurantumi and into the Begoro hills and in the south, they are a day’s journey from Asman (i.e. Asamankese) or the Akim side of the Densu . . . there is now a hunger to possess land among the people.”40 The chiefs of Apapam, Maase, and Asafo frequently sold their stool lands to farmers and immigrants from neighboring states for the cultivation of cocoa. Odikro Kwame Mane of Apapam, for example, sold most of his stool lands stretching southwards from Apapam to Nsawam and lying west of Suhum at a ridiculously low price. Likewise, the chiefs of Asafo and Maase also disposed most of the land lying to the immediate west of Densu River.41 By 1896, land in the state was sold at £1.4 per rope, over £6.00 per acre.42

Boom in Mining Concessions, ca. 1900

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Gold Coast experienced a boom in mining concessions. Soldiers returning home to Britain from the Yaa Asantewaa War (1900) carried reports of the Gold Coast’s wealth in gold resources. The result was a “gold rush” by expatriate mining companies, as corroborated by Junner: “. . . between 1901 and 1902 alone, over 3,600 mining concessions were filed within the territory.”43 Around the same time, the Concessions Ordinance was passed to regulate the granting of concessions and to protect illiterate African landowners from undue exploitation.44 With the introduction of scientific mining in Akyem Abuakwa in 1897, reckless alienation of stool lands reached a climax as the state was inundated by concession mongers. Between 1900 and 1923, there were fifty-seven mining companies comprising twenty-nine gold concessions, twenty-four diamond concessions, and four joint gold and diamond concessions.45 On August 7, 1923, the West African Diamond Syndicate Limited was formed. In 1924, the Anglo-African Explora- tion Limited was formed. On October 11, 1924, a merger of these two companies resulted in the formation of the Consolidated African Selection Trust Limited (CAST)46 for the acquisition of diamondiferous areas in Akyem Abuakwa. Earlier, in 1920, Akim Diamond fields Limited began to exploit the deposits of Abomosu, but abandoned it three years later. From 1925, CAST operated with other expatriate companies on the Birrimian diamondiferous area. The companies were West African Diamonds Syndicate, which operated a concession at Kokotintin, south of Akwatia; Akim Conces- sions Limited, Atiankama; Holland Syndicate Limited, Takorase; Cayco (London) 92  Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah

Limited, Topremang; and the Russo-Asiatic company, Kwaben.47 In April 1934, a new company called Ayena Limited became part of the diamond producing companies in Akyem Abuakwa.48 Concession grants to gold prospecting firms increased with the discovery of diamonds in Abomosu in 1919 and alluvial deposits of diamonds later in Kade and Oda.49 Thus, for more than two decades, extensive tracts of land rich in gold passed from the hands of the Abuakwa people into the hands of European cap- italists.50 The alienation of stool lands as concessions became a major source of income for the impoverished stool occupants of the state as they received pay- ments from the concessions and pocketed them for their personal use. By 1912, the usual payment ranged between £50 and £200 per five square miles as consider- ation money, plus a rent of £10–12 per annum rising to £300 once machinery had been installed.51 A “Return of Concession Rents” payable to the Eastern Province showed that thirty-one out of the thirty-two concessions listed paid an annual rent of £5,204 to the various stools of Abuakwa in 1932.52 By 1912, in certain villages the chiefs had alienated so much land that Abuakwa natives in those villages “had already begun to feel actually the pressure for land to cultivate upon or even extend their existing farms; and it was certain that soon, the Abuakwa, among the biggest and most profitable land owners in this country would be reduced to a landless and beggarly people.”53 This situation seem to confirm the assertions of the political historians mentioned earlier. In 1912, Belfield pointed out that chiefs sold lands outside the traditional framework and pocketed the proceeds for personal use because there were no proper accounting procedures within the traditional authority; this resulted in financial irregularities in Akyem Abuakwa. Addo-Fening confirmed Belfield’s report by stating that: “More often than not chiefs sold or caused to be sold large tracts of land without the consent of their elders and without accounting for the sale money. There were some chiefs whose selfishness and greed had tempted them to sell lands including farmlands cultivated by their own people.”54 With so much money flowing into their hands, the Abuakwa chiefs became extravagant in managing the stool treasuries; others became victims of alcohol- ism. Much of what came in as revenue from the sales of land concessions rent and other sources was spent gleefully and lavishly on liquor and women.55 The chiefs did not use the money they collected judiciously to embark on development of social infrastructure like road construction, construction of school buildings, hospitals, or the provision of pipe-borne water in their areas of jurisdiction for the benefit of all. The Abuakwa citizens were disinherited as the sales systematically transferred large portions of their land to stranger-farmers and European concessionaires. Commenting on this deplorable state of affairs, Danquah pointed out that the divisional chiefs had sold about 98 percent of the The Politics of Property Rights  93 stool land from the Densu River and Nsawam to Densusu, near the village of Apedwa, a strip of twenty-five miles long and ten to twenty-five miles in width. He dismissed the reasons argued by the chiefs to justify the land sales as “pre- texts to outrageous devastations of the stool lands” and lamented that “. . . Akim Abuakwa territory is under our own eyes, gradually being cut off slice by slice, like bread on a breakfast table.”56 Danquah reiterated that if the land sales went unchecked, only bits or frag- ments of Abuakwa land would remain and future generations of Abuakwa State would go hungry.57 The sales of land in Abuakwa provided a constant reminder of the paramount chief’s declining influence over his divisional chiefs such that one-third of the rents due them customarily were ignored by the divisional chiefs. Therefore, the land sales deprived the paramount stool and Ofori Atta personally of substantial economic gain, and undermined the power wielded by this central authority.58 This was because Ofori Atta’s predecessors lacked the political will to enforce their authority on their subjects. One such weak and incompetent Okyenhene was Amoako Atta II. He was enstooled as Omanhene in 1887. His predecessor Amoako Atta I, had even suffered deportation to Lagos, an unparalleled incident in Abuakwa history. He was not openly challenged by his ordinary subjects but was also treasonably con- fronted and defied by his subordinate chiefs.59 Begoro chiefs, from the time of Fenning to Tupirn, wantonly and treacherously sold Begoro lands to satisfy their caprices without the approval of their Council of Elders and the paramount chief.60 They acted waywardly without showing a modicum of respect to the paramount chief. In an attempt to stop such practices and its repercussions on his political authority, Amoako Atta II appealed to the colonial administration: “It is the fashion and customary from the beginning of this Akim throne that whenever any of the Akims had to made [sic] a sale of any land or happened to obtain a rock or any valuable metal from any part of parts of any land the party the bound by our rule to give up one-third of the said products to the stool but nowadays the people are unwilling to do as it customary to b e d on e .” 61 Though the State’s Council meeting of 1901 declared all Abuakwa land sales without the signature of the paramount ruler invalid and restored one-fourth of all land revenues to him, this resolution could not be successfully executed owing to Amoako Atta’s ineptitude. This situation continued till the reign of Ofori Atta I.62 According to Addo-Fening, at the time of Ofori Atta’s accession in Novem- ber 1912, the harmful effects of the uncontrolled alienation of stool lands were already very much in evidence.63 Afari corroborated Addo-Fening’s assertion, writing that through greed and selfishness, several chiefs sold lands indiscrim- inately, including farms owned by their subjects. Some private citizens followed 94  Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah

suit by selling lands without authorization.64 In effect Ofori Atta inherited a vir- tually “lawless” society. Addo-Fening reiterated that at the time of Ofori Atta I’s ascension as the paramount chief, Abuakwa was in a piteous state.65

Enforcement of Abuakwa Traditional Land Tenure System

To eliminate the abuses that had been allowed to creep into the customary land tenure system and to “preserve for future generations the few portion [sic] of lands which had not been alienated,”66 Nana Ofori Atta I decided to enforce the earlier land tenure system of Akyem Abuakwa. When he became the paramount chief of Akyem Abuakwa in 1912, one of his major preoccupations was to end the reckless alienation of Abuakwa lands. He envisaged a local command economy that would be dominated by an aristocrat who, he argued, had the right to control and, for all intents and purposes, own the major means of production in the state.67 Nana Ofori Atta I and his brother, J. B. Danquah, worked in concert to make Akyem Abuakwa one of the most powerful states in the Gold Coast colony. Thus, they sought to articulate and enforce a property rights system that would check indiscriminate sales of land and encourage Abuakwa citizens to invest in the land. Ofori Atta’s version of customary law would give the paramount stool and its occupant a larger portion of the state’s income through the imposition of taxes.68 The revenue accrued was to be used for developmental purposes for the benefit of Abuakwa citizens.

The Reinvention of Tradition: Nana Ofori Atta I’s Reign

As a first step, he convened a meeting at Kyebi in 1915 where he prevailed upon the Okyeman Council to resolve unanimously to reserve for the Abuakwa people and “to future generations the few portion of lands which had not been alienated.”69 With the consent of the Okyeman Council, Nana Ofori Atta I placed a notice in the press that forbade the alienation of any portion of Abuakwa land “in any shape or form” without the prior approval of the “Odikro of the place and the Omanhene” of Eastern Akim.70 It further prohibited citizens from mort- gaging their cocoa farms as security for any purpose whatsoever without proper authority.71 Ofori Atta’s effort to ensure a strict adherence to these regulations did not go unchallenged because they threatened the interests of some subchiefs, especially those of Tafo and Asamankese. They denied the claim implicit in Nana Ofori Atta’s notice of 1915 that the paramount stool shared ownership and control over The Politics of Property Rights  95 stool lands with the subchiefs. In a case between Tafo and the paramount stool, arising from Tafohene Kwadwo Peasah’s sale of certain portions of Tafo stool lands without the consent of the paramount stool, the Tafohene claimed that the land rightly belonged to him and, with his elders, issued a public notice “repudi- ating the validity of all leases in connection with Tafo lands on which the Oman- hene’s name appeared.”72 An inquiry was held at Kyebi and the Okyeman Council confirmed in a unanimous ruling that the paramount stool “is the owner of all Akim Stool Lands.”73 Accordingly, it laid down the following directives. First, the Okyenhene’s prior knowledge and consent were necessary for a valid alienation of stool land and, second, any valid document in respect of land alienation must bear the Okyenhene’s signature.74 The judgment was pronounced in the presence of the Acting District Commissioner W. J. A. Jones in 1921:

Any land in Akim Abuakwa before its alienation should be known by Omanhene and his consent obtained before its alienation can proceed. Omanhene’s name must appear in every document with regard to land in Akim Abuakwa. We find that if the Ohene of Tafo said that he owns the land absolutely, it is a lie. Since the ancient times, if a chief received legs of game, he had to send some to the Omanhene, also shares of snails collected were sent to him. We therefore find that the Ohene’s claim to be the owner of the Tafo lands is absolutely wrong and not according to Akim Abuakwa law: we know that the Omanhene of Akim Abuakwa is the owner of all Akim Stool lands.75

Among the signatories was Kwabena Poakwa, a linguist of the Asamankese Stool.76 Armed with this ruling, Nana Ofori Atta and the State Council proceeded to enforce the traditional land tenure system. Ofori Atta solicited the cooper- ation of the Okyeman Council to promulgate a bylaw in 1923 that made the unauthorized sale of stool lands a crime punishable by instant destoolment. In 1927, Ofori Atta’s State Council convicted and destooled four chiefs who had defied this injunction. The chief of Asuom, for instance, was destooled for squandering a sum of £700 of concessions money and stool revenue on drinks.77 Notwithstand- ing the State Council’s judgment, the Asamankese chief, Kwaku Amoa, remained unmoved. In that same year, he negotiated with a European representative from the Anglo-Guinea firm, Semple, for a piece of Asamankese land to construct a warehouse. He refused to sign his portion of a lease agreement prepared by the Okyenhene in the name of “Omanhene, Elders, Councillors and Oman of Akim Abuakwa,” arguing that, “the Omanhene had no land at Asamankese.”78 The large sums of revenue accrued from the discovery of diamond deposits in Akyem Abuakwa in 1919 became a source of constant conflict between Asa- mankese and Akwatia chiefs and the Okyenhene. The European mining and prospecting firms negotiated for concessions and paid rents and royalties 96  Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah

directly to the two chiefs without reference to the Okyenhene or the paramountcy. This threatened the reinstituted customary practices in regard to the land tenure system and also affected Abuakwa’s political and social institutions, which nearly disintegrated the state. The high value of land in Abuakwa led to several subsequent developments. First, the mineral deposits were all located in areas which were under the political and economic domain of the paramount ruler of Akyem Abuakwa traditional area. And as the customary practices of Abuakwa demanded, the paramount chief could look forward to a one-third share in all the revenues accruing from the various diamond transactions on his land.79 Second, the main diamond discovery zones lay directly in an area of jurisdiction of chiefs Kwaku Amoah of Asa- mankese and Odikro Kwame Kuma of Akwatia, who had served the Ofori Panin stool with steadfast loyalty and support for about 200 years. Although Okyenhene Ofori Atta I was entitled to one-third of the revenue from the diamonds, the greed and insubordination on the part of the Asamankese royals did not make them give Ofori Atta his share. In a letter to Nana Ofori Atta I dated at Adeiso in 1921, he communicated his decision to secede from the jurisdiction of the paramount chief by stating that, “Nana, I do not want to tax your patience, and just to relieve you and Okyeman of any inconveniency that my absence from your meeting may cause, I and my elders respectfully lay before you that we should not be counted upon as we shall henceforth be no parties to any bye-laws or Rules that would be passed by you and your elders and that such bye-laws and Rules as you may have passed should not be communicated to us.”80 Kwaku Amoah did not only disobey summons from the Okyenhene to go to Kyebi and explain his conduct but also absented himself together with Odikro Kwame Kuma from meetings of the State Council. On October 7, 1921, Kwaku Amoah petitioned the acting governor for leave for the Asamankese and Akwatia Stools to withdraw their allegiance from the Par- amount Stool of Akyem Abuakwa.81 Notwithstanding the governor’s rejection of his request, Kwaku Amoa and Akwatiahene continued to defy the authority of the Okyenhene by alienating lands without reference to him as well as withholding his share and royalties.82 The two rebels ignored the Okyenhene in all ensuing land transactions, including the agreement of September 26, 1922, between Odikro Kwame Kuma and the representatives of CAST.83 The loss to the Okyenhene of his share of revenue for the period between 1925 and 1935 was estimated at £3,000. This represented a one-third share of the £10,000 payable annually by the mining company between those years to the land owners.84 Kwaku Amoah of Asamankese argued that, the relationship between him and Ofori Atta was not that between a superior and subordinate but that between equals because they were all descendants of Queen Dokua. He further accused The Politics of Property Rights  97

Ofori Atta of adulterating Abuakwa customary practices and bullying the subordinate chiefs for his personal interest.85 It seemed Kwaku Amoah and the chiefs in his camp were either ignorant or pretending to be ignorant of the earlier tradition concerning land tenure in Abuakwa. Kwaku Amoah also complained that, in ancient times, the Asamankese and Akyem stools formed an alliance to fight their common enemy, the Akwamu. Their relationship now was one of friendship and mutual convenience and had never involved any form of hierarchical authority such as that now asserted by Ofori Atta I. Therefore, the Okyenhene’s efforts to assert control over Asamankese lands constituted a breach of native custom and was reasonable justification for Asamankese’s secession. On the other hand, Ofori Atta I claimed that the Akyem Abuakwa state defeated the Akwamu in battle when the Asamankese still served the Akwamu paramount stool. When the Akwamu were defeated, the Asamankese swore an oath of allegiance to the Akyem paramount stool. As part of this oath, the Asamank- ese promised to deliver one-third of all gold or treasure found on stool lands to the paramount stool.86 Critics of Ofori Atta I such as Rathbone and Firmin-Sellers confirmed that the British support for Ofori Atta I was not limited to the Asamankese unrest and that he “was supported by the power of the colonial state whenever he needed it .” 87 For example, when the Amantoomiensa Asafo protested against Ofori Atta’s rule in 1918, British troops quelled the riot and some of the rebels were designated for “severe punishment” by the district commissioner. Again, in 1932 when the Asafo preferred charges against Nana Ofori Atta I based on allegations of financial impropriety and consequently launched destoolment charges against him, British officials continually confirmed their support for the Omanhene. In his monograph Murder and Politics in Colonial Ghana, Rathbone questions the idea of primordial tradition and argues that Ofori Atta I was concerned with centralizing his personal power and that he used tradition as a tool for his personal project. Rathbone reiterated that, Ofori-Atta I used the support of the colonial state to refurbish the power of the kingdom and he used the new powers of the kingdom to privilege his close kin and children.88 Rathbone’s argument questions the idea of whether “timeless tradition” exists. According to him, Ofori Atta I had no right to claim traditional authority over Asamankese. In fact, it is interesting to note that Ofori Atta’s version of tradition owed a great deal to the ideas of his half-brother, J. B. Danquah, a Western-educated lawyer who produced a book on Akyem Abuakwa tradition. His book served the political purpose of legitimating the paramountcy’s alleged primordial control over the kingdom. Second, the royal family had scarcely had any land in Akyem Abuakwa that was directly under its control and was, therefore, unable to act as a direct vendor. The 98  Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah

Okyenhene could only obtain a share on the profits of land commercialization by rent taxation through the imposition of taxes on sold lands. Faced with these developments, the ruling dynasty took steps to centralize the political power of the kingdom in order to reestablish social control over the chiefs and commoners. In the process, the relative autonomy of wing chiefs was eroded. This was a device to preserve Akyem Abuakwa land for the entire community and future generations.89 The preservation of bonding social capital in Akyem Abuakwa was also dependent on the threat of force backed up by the coercive power of the state by the enactment of the Native Administrative Ordinance (NAO) of 1927.90 Section 123 of the NAO gave the State Councils the power to draw up “native land c u s t om .” The Okyeman Council headed by an unusually skillful Okyenhene adjudicated cases in its own favor. The lawyers themselves were divided over the issue of tradition versus modernity and the fair allocation of resources. On the one hand, J. B. Danquah made it clear that the mediators of customary law rested entirely on the paramount chief and his State Council, the district administration and the gover- nor.91 On the other hand, Kobina Sekyi accused Ofori Atta of bending traditional law and custom to the grave disadvantage of his divisional chiefs, thus proving himself to be an autocrat. He went on to say that Ofori Atta I was an unscrupu- lous chief who exploited a pernicious ordinance to the detriment of his people.92 Kwaku Amoah also mentioned that Ofori Atta I prospered because of his ties to the colonial state and alliance with the colonial government. It is undisputable that Ofori Atta was regarded by the colonial regime as a man of great distinction. He was a member of the Legislative Council from 1916 to 1943 and was one of the first two Africans to sit on the Executive Council in 1942. As a result, his advice was frequently sought by the British and in turn they undoubtedly reinforced his local authority.93 He was praised by a colonial official as a “great stateman” and an “unofficial advisor on native affairs.”94 He used this privileged position to promote his political agenda, and persuaded British officials to restyle the institutions of indirect rule so as to strengthen his own authority over his divisional chiefs. He convinced British officials to take action against the disobedient Kwaku Amoah of Asamankese. In this way he captured British coercive authority and ended distributional conflict over property rights in Akyem Abuakwa. The Politics of Property Rights  99

Arguments in Support of Nana Ofori Atta I’s Property Rights System in Akyem Abuakwa

This article argues that Nana Ofori Atta did not introduce the new property right system in Akyem Abuakwa to satisfy his parochial interest. He rather ensured that proceeds from the imposition of tax on land were used for the general benefit of the people of the traditional state. When Ofori Atta discovered that the mining companies in his state were being exploitative by refusing to pay rent to the state or deferring payment resulting in outstanding arrears, he reentered several concessions for their nonpayment of rents with the aid of his lawyer, Hutton Mills. He also insisted on the payment of rents to private land owners who had leased their property to mining companies. A major concern of Nana Ofori Atta I after his installation as Okyenhene was to turn Abuakwa traditional state into a modern state. To achieve this aim, he sponsored many pupils from his kingdom in institutions of higher learning so that they would return with their expertise to help develop the state. He accordingly instituted stool-funded scholarships and the Okyeman Fund, not only in secondary schools, but also in universities abroad. It is significant to note that this was introduced at a time when there were no universities in existence at the Gold Coast and the colonial administration was tight-fisted on expenditures for university education. Nana Ofori Atta, in a letter to J. L. Williams, manager of Gold- fields of Eastern Akim in London in 1921, stated “My chiefs and I have decided that two or three young men should at the earliest opportunity be sent to England to have a thorough and sound education and to subsequently take up such profession for which they could qualify.”95 Through this scheme, Okyeman ensured that citizens accessed university education at Oxford, Cambridge, London, Durham, Glasgow, Birmingham, and Edin- burgh universities and at Trinity College, Dublin.96

Rough Estimates of the Proportion of Paramount Stool Revenues Spent on Public Projects

Using available archival materials to attempt a rough estimate of the proportion of paramount stool revenues spent on public project, the author points out that one of the sources of Ofori Atta I’s wealth as Okyenhene was land-derived revenue. As paramount chief, he became the largest shareholder in revenue generated from the land under his jurisdiction. He was guaranteed a share in all treasure trove (Ahudeɛ) and gold nuggets (epo) above £2 (the equivalent of US$277 100  Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah

in today’s economy). The sharing formula was based on a fixed proportion of one- third going to the paramount chief and the remaining two-thirds shared equally between the immediate landowner (odikro) and the miner.97 Per the sharing formula of land revenue in his kingdom, Ofori Atta I received £10,000 annually from 1929 to 1932 from CAST as his share of stool revenue (rent).98 And there were many such mining companies in his kingdom.99 A “Return of Concession Rents payable to the Eastern province” shows that the paramount stool’s share of the large rents and royalties paid by CAST during that period was estimated at £57,960.92.100 Other sources of income for the Okyenhene (i.e., Ofori Atta I) included levies and fine imposed by the state tribunals and the State Council.101 It can therefore be extrapolated that Ofori Atta I used much of these revenues to execute public projects in Akyem Abuakwa. Afari pointed out that it is a testament to Ofori Atta I’s sense of responsibility, that coming, as he did, from a traditional system of rule that made no distinction between personal and public income of a chief, he applied most of the monies he accrued to him as rent and royalties in the interest of his people.102 Martin Wright share these sentiments when he stated that, “Ofori Atta I was very wealthy, both as a landowner and a possessor of lucrative mining interest; but in this he was in no different position from other chiefs, who have equally benefitted from a system that has not distin- guished between the stool revenue and the chief’s private income. But he decided to use these monies judiciously for the benefit of his subjects.”103 Ofori Atta I was one of the few chiefs in the Eastern Province of the Gold Coast colony to have shown enthusiasm for the concept of the stool treasuries, which came into force in 1939 with the Stool Treasuries Ordinance.104

The Reliability of Archival Sources about Ofori Atta

Ofori Atta’s critics wrote that he was supported by the power of the colonial state whenever he needed it, implying that he was a “darling boy” of the colonial administrators. For that matter, they questioned the reliability of archival sources written by these colonial administrators about Ofori Atta I. It will interest you to note that some of these critics were members of the Aborigines Right Protection Society (ARPS) and later the National Congress of British West Africa (NCBWA) who because of their educational attainments and economic standing thought they were entitled to the national political leadership of the Gold Coast. Because Nana Ofori Atta I had insisted that the traditional rulers of the various ethnic states in the Gold Coast were the most authoritative exponents of native public opinion and for that matter, the governance of the Gold Coast should be vested in the chiefs and not the elites, he incurred the displeasure of the elites who looked The Politics of Property Rights  101 for an opportunity to undermine his position in the Gold Coast politics. More- over, the preference for traditional institutions by the colonial government over popular democracy as advocated by the elite was another factor that fomented and fostered the antagonism between Ofori Atta and his critics who did not see any good thing he has done. He was the most vilified and maligned person in the Gold Coast by the elite in the 1920s up to early 1940s. On the contrary, the author of this article is of the view that the archival materials written by members of the colonial administration about Ofori Atta were authentic documents. As a human being Ofori Atta was not without fault. In all his deliberations as a traditional ruler and a legislature for the Gold Coast he admitted to a sense of fragility of human nature. He dreamt of great things and achieved great things and was honest enough to admit that he was not without faults. As he once remarked “it is the man who does nothing that makes no mis- t a ke .” 105 The public projects (e.g., construction of school buildings, roads) were monumental legacies Ofori Atta bequeathed to the people of Akyem Abuakwa and should not be glossed over notwithstanding the criticism from his political opponents, who were not perfect human beings. Why should we refuse to rec- ognize Ofori Atta’s projects because of the criticisms of his political adversaries? According to Rathbone, Wright, and Addo-Fening, much of the funding came from Ofori Atta’s own share of stool revenue. He inherited a traditional state whose land abounded in gold, diamonds, and to some extent, silver.106 By the turn of the twentieth century, Akyem Abuakwa was one of the richest Gold Coast states in terms of natural resources.107 The Okyenhene Ofori Atta I adopted pru- dent measures to ensure effective collection of revenues. This confirms the prop- osition by some theorists that a state’s ruler will enforce property rights either to expand the tax base or maximize revenue collection. First, Ofori Atta I formulated a comprehensive policy for managing stool lands, by which he sought to check the reckless alienation of stool lands and use of the state’s resources by his sub chiefs. On January 27, 1915, with the support of the Okyeman Council, a bylaw was passed to forbid unauthorized alienation of stool lands by his subchiefs. Second, the Okyenhene threatened to abrogate the concessionary rights of Europeans who had failed to pay their land rents. Calculations from the balance sheets that were sent to Nana Ofori Atta II108 after the demise of John Saxton showed that from December 1921 to September 1927, J. B. Danquah had received through the former’s hands a total of £3,460 ster- ling,109 and Susan Ofori Atta’s fees as a medical student at the Royal Free Hospital in London cost £300 per annum.110 John Saxton and later Walter Austin, business partners of Nana Ofori Atta I based in Britain, explained the latter’s role after his demise as follows: “I used to pay all the University fees of William Ofori Atta (,) and from time to time, the late 102  Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah

Omanhene would instruct Cayco [London] Limited [a mining consortium] with mines in Akyem Abuakwa to pay me such part of his share of the profits which would discharge the obligation. When Susan Ofori Atta came over to this country[,] I used to pay her fees and advanced money for her maintenance, then later I would be refunded by your uncle instructing Cayco . . . to pay me.”111 Another letter written by Austin, to Nana Ofori Atta I in 1939, further indicated his role in adhering to the Okyenhene’s measures. Austin indicated that: “When you get the accounts[,] I shall be glad if you will write a letter to Cayco [London] Ltd instructing them to pay your share of the profits [royalty] to your account at the Bank of British West Africa in London[,] and then you can instruct them to pay the account to me. This amount I will place to the credit of William’s account. If you can see your way, I should like you to send me a remittance in respect of monies disbursed by me on account of William.”112 The Abuakwa Scholars Union, made up of a coalition of educated sons of the Abuakwa state and formed in 1916 under Danquah’s leadership, contributed to the successful institution of the Okyeman Scholarship Scheme to fund the education of bright pupils. The union sought to promote development in the state, with special emphasis on education.113 The scheme was financed with the contribution of 5 percent of revenue from all land sales.114 The union again advocated for leg- islation to compel chiefs to educate stool heirs by way of accepting responsibility for sponsoring their education. Ofori Atta believed that a lack of formal education impeded a chief’s ability to perform his duties and made him vulnerable to manipulation or outright condemnation by the Colonial Office. He, therefore, aimed at preventing that situation. In 1918, he proposed the compulsory education of stool heirs.115 The people of Apinamang, for instance, applied this bylaw to compel their chief, Kofi Boateng, to abdicate for his negligence in educating heirs to the stools.116 In a memo presented to the Presbyterian synod meeting at Kyebi on July 11, 1941, Nana Ofori Atta declared “I do, and shall always emphasise [sic] that education should be regarded as one of the foremost duties towards the community; and any chief who fails or neglects his duty can hardly be deemed worthy of his trust.”117 He also used his share of the rents and royalties to fund the construction of school buildings. In 1917, for instance, he built the Kyebi primary and middle schools, later taken over by the central government and renamed the Govern- ment School. To show the government that he was earnest about the school, he volunteered to grant land for the construction of the school building.118 In 1929, he further extended the Kyebi school premises at his own expense: “As the government fully realise [sic] now, Akim Abuakwa is not well provided with educational facilities[,] and since this school is the only Government school in Akim Abuakwa, I thought no further representation in this matter was needed. I am The Politics of Property Rights  103 quite willing to grant the land for the extension[,] and if you would indicate to me the dimension of the land wanted, I should have it marked out at once.”119 His belief in the importance of higher education led to the establishment of the Abuakwa State College in 1935 with a grant of £10,000 as seed money, taken from his share of stool revenue and the rents and royalties he collected from mining companies.120 True to the spirit of self-help, he made some personal sacrifices, such as the denial of his own son, William Ofori Attah, then a student at Cambridge, of the comfort he needed as a student studying overseas by drastically reducing his expenditure just to save enough money to support the Abuakwa State Col- lege project.121 Okyeman, therefore, became the first traditional state in the Gold Coast to establish a secondary school.122 The school was started at Akyem Asafo in 1935 and was moved to Kyebi in the same year. The decision to build a state college at Kyebi was first mooted by the State Council of Akyem Abuakwa in 1935.123 At that time, only ten secondary schools existed in the colony, with a total enrolment of 3,089 students. Of these, only Achimota was government owned; of the rest, Christian missions owned the majority. Two of the privately owned schools—Accra Academy and Accra High School—were located in Accra.124 Furthermore, Nana Ofori Atta I gave generous financial assistance to schools in his kingdom. An instance of this was his contribution of £12 to the Kukurantumi Presbyterian School for the purchase of a set of jazz band instruments.125 Again, he donated £5 to the Kyebi Junior Trade School on Empire Day.126 He presented gifts of money, portraits, and silver cups to schools in Akyem Abuakwa to encourage educational activities, and he organized interschool sports competitions, bearing all expenses in connection with them.127 During his thirty-one– year rule, the state of Akyem Abuakwa undoubtedly made remarkable strides in education. Some of the sons and daughters of Abuakwa returned with the expertise to serve the state. J. B. Danquah became the state secretary and contributed signifi- cantly to the political development of the Gold Coast. He founded the United Gold Coast Convention, the first political party in the Gold Coast. Long before the promotion of women’s empowerment at the national level, Ofori Atta I’s progressive policies on education had given to the Gold Coast in 1949 its first female medical doctor. Her name was Susan Akosua Bour Gyankroma Ofori Atta, the daughter of Nana Ofori Atta I. In the political struggle for independence, two of the architects—the so-called Big Six—were sons of Akyem Abuakwa who had benefited from Ofori Atta’s educational policies. The new property right system introduced by Ofori Atta I also enabled him to collect rent and royalties from the mining companies in his traditional state and he used it to construct roads from Apedwa to Kyebi.128 In January 1913, he renovated the Apedwa-Kyebi road; an act that impressed Governor Hugh Clifford during his visit to Kyebi in February that year so much that he praised Ofori Atta 104  Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah

for doing a good work.129 In the last quarter of 1916, he had “placed a contract for the reconstruction and bridging” of that road at a cost of £1,500.130 From 1917 to March 1918, he kept the road in a good state of repair without any subsidy from the government. Thanks to his initiative and commitment, the Apedwa-Kyebi Road had become “a very fine road” by the beginning of 1922.131 Ofori Atta I also established a system of accountability to check the reckless use of the state’s resources, which he rightly perceived as a communal patrimony. To forestall the chiefs’ tendency to amass wealth by illegal land sales, he instituted an elaborate system of financial accountability under which a state treasurer and other officials were appointed to collect, receive, and properly disburse revenue accrued from 20 percent of farm rents, gold, diamonds, sale of stool lands, and 5 percent of oath fines of native tribunals in Akyem Abuakwa.132 As a proactive chief who became a role model for his subordinate chiefs, he inspired them to use part of stool revenues accruing from mining and cocoa production to construct roads in their town. He also influenced the colonial administration to enact Asamankese Division Regulatory Ordinance (ADRO) in 1935 to quell distributional conflict in his traditional states and this brought an end to the conflict between himself and the Asamankese rebels.133 The ADRO also helped to forestall other conflicts between rebellious chiefs and the Okyenhene. In an address at the reconciliation meeting held on May 27, 1938, Hon. A. C. Duncan-Johnstone, commissioner of the East- ern Province, stated that the ADRO was to check “unwarrantable squandering of stool revenue on matters of no constructive value.” The ADRO provided for government control over all rents, dues, royalties, and revenues from stool lands, as well as “all levies, dues, fees[,] and rates payable by virtue of, or in accordance with, the provisions of any ordinance or bye- laws” that were to be paid into the stool treasuries. The ordinance empowered the governor-in-council to prescribe the purpose for which such revenues were allocated. All individuals who received stool revenue, aside from the prescribed officer (the district commissioner), were to be punished with a fine of £50 or two- years’ imprisonment, with or without hard labor.134 Thus, ADRO benefitted Asa- mankese and Akwatia in particular and Akyem Abuakwa in general. Ofori Atta’s move to ensure financial accountability yielded positive results as see in the 1937–38 fiscal year report. Duncan-Johnstone indicated that £3,572.10.10 had been accrued to the Asamankese Stool by way of revenue from various sources.135 With this amount, the town raised market sheds and constructed streets, along with a drainage system. The same amount enabled the town to maintain a sizeable team of manual laborers. Asamankese also had a lorry park, and a comprehensive plan of town drainage was drawn up.136 Again, in the 1939–40 financial year, the minutes of the thirty-first session of the provincial council, held at The Politics of Property Rights  105

Dodowa on March 5, 1940, revealed that the native administration of Asamankese had undertaken a number of beneficial public works and had still managed to have an increased the bank balance by £400.137 Duncan-Johnstone’s report also revealed that Akwatia constructed a three- classroom native administration school with a playground, an office, and school equipment, and the school had a strong teaching staff. Drains and market sheds also were constructed.138 In the 1939–40 financial year, a model village was raised at the cost of £1,000.139 Revenue collection showed remarkable improvement. For example, the total revenue paid to the Akwatia stool by CAST in June 1935 was £2,895, and it increased to approximately £4,000 by June 1936. Mining royalties for Akwatia in 1937 were estimated at £3,500, of which Asamankese’s share, representing a quarter of the total royalties paid to the stool of Akwatia by CAST, was pegged at £875. Like- wise, the annual estimate of rents from the Asamankese stool lands amounted to £6,000. Tolls from a conservancy, slaughterhouses, and market sheds were pegged at £200, £180, and £500 respectively. These were manifestations of the consci- entious planning, motivated by a desire to enhance the welfare of the people of Akyem Abuakwa. There was a clear break with the past when huge sums of money meant for the state had been left in the spendthrift hands of some chiefs. A firm foundation had been laid for an equitable and rational disbursement of public funds for social improvement. The commissioner of the Eastern Province acknowledged this fact when he stated that: “I visited Asamankese and Akwatia on the 25 and 26 July and was much impressed by the work which was being undertaken there. In both places there were now large main drains[,] into which all other parts of the towns can be drained. New roads are being constructed in accordance with the layout. Market sheds and lorry park layouts [sic]. Chiefs of both towns are most helpful and have given the D.C. ‘carte blanche’ to knock down any house which happens to be in line of the layout.”140

Conclusion

Through dedicated leadership, Ofori Atta I was able to rescue Akyem Abuakwa traditional state from the depth of oblivion and turned into what came to be regarded in colonial officialdom as “the most leading and progressive of all native states in the Gold Coast.”141 This remarkable success story is a tribute to his policies. According to Afari, Ofori Atta believed that a chief’s position required him to act as an agent of change by initiating socioeconomic developments for the improvement of the lives of his subjects. He exemplified this principle by the practical 106  Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah

contributions that he personally made in his own traditional state in the areas of infrastructure, health, sanitation, and education for the benefit of Abuakwa citizens but not for his parochial interests, as suggested by other scholars.

notes

The author is very grateful to Andrew Mellon Foundation for sponsoring this project. He is also grateful to the anonymous reviewers of this article. 1. Robert H. Bates, Markets and States in Tropical Africa (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981). 2. C. J. N. Gibbs, and D. W. Bromley, “Institutional Arrangements for Management of Rural Resources: Common-property regimes,” in Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development, ed. Fikret Berkes (Lon- don: Belhaven Press, 1989), 1–17. 3. Frank Vogelgesang, “After Land Reform the Market?,” Land Reform, Land Settle- ment and Cooperatives 2, no. 1 (1998): 20–34. 4. John Griffiths, “What is Legal Pluralism?,” Journal of Legal Pluralism 24 (1986): 1. 5. Robert Addo-Fening, “The ‘Akim’ or ‘Achim’ in 17th Century and 18th Century His- torical Contexts: Who were They?,” Research Review 42 (1988): 1; see also, Ghana Statistical Service, Population Census of Ghana 1960, vol. 1 (Accra: Government of Ghana). 6. Widmann and Mader to Basel (Basel missionaries in the Gold Coast who wrote letters to Basel) March 23, 1852, in Paul Jenkins, Abstracts of Basel Mission Gold Coast Correspondence, B.V. 3625 G.5J41 L.R. Balme Library, University of Ghana. See also, Stromberg’s Report, May 4, 1863, in Paul Jenkins, Abstracts of Basel Mis- sion Gold Coast Correspondence, B.V. 3625 G.5J41 L.R. Balme Library, University of Ghana; and “Comments on Abuakwa Land Resources by Missionaries,” in Paul Jenkins, Abstracts of Basel Mission Gold Coast Correspondence, B.V. 3625 G.5J41 L.R. Balme Library, University of Ghana. 7. Kofi Dumehasie, “Asamankese Crisis of 1919–1939: An Evaluation of Western Economic Forces and their Impact on Akyem Abuakwa’s Socio-Political Institu- tions.” (MPhil diss., University of Ghana, 1997). 8. For details, see, Robert Addo-Fening, Akyem Abuakwa, 1700–1943: From Ofori Panin to Sir Ofori Atta (Trondheim: Norwegian University of Science and Tech- nology, 1997), 1; see also, H. W. Debrunner, A History of Christianity in Ghana (Accra, Ghana: Waterville Publishing House, 1967), 190. 9. Dumehasie, “Asamankese Crisis of 1919–1939.” 10. Robert Addo-Fening, “The Asamankese Disputes 1919–1938,” in The Politics of Akyem Abuakwa in the Inter-War Period (Basel, Switzerland: Basel African Bibli- ography, 1975), 25. 11. Ivor Wilks, “The Rise of the Akwamu Empire, 1650–1710,” Transactions of the His- torical Society of Ghana 2 (1957): 117. The Politics of Property Rights  107

12. Addo-Fening, “The Asamankese Disputes,” 64. 13. Ibid. 14. Dispatch from Apam (Gawron), 17 September, E.F.C. Notes, 214. Archival Docu- ments deposited in the Department of History Library, University of Ghana. 15. Robert Addo-Fening, “Customary Land Tenure System in Akyem Abuakwa,” Universitas: An Interfaculty Journal 9 (1987): 95–105. 16. Meeting held at Koforidua, August 20, 1895, PRAAD, Accra, ADM 11/1122. 17. Addo-Fening, “Customary Land Tenure System in Akyem Abuakwa.” 18. A. B. Ellis, The Tshi Speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast of West Africa (London: Chapman & Hall, 1887), 298–299; Begoro-Jakiti land dispute, July 4, 1916 PRAAD, Accra, ADM 11/1152. 19. Addo-Fening, “Customary Land Tenure System in Akyem Abuakwa.” 20. Paul Jenkins, Abstract from the Gold Coast Correspondence of the Basel Mis- sion. Balme Library, 561, Lodholtz to Basel, January 5, 1871. 21. Arbitration Award, PRAAD, Accra, ADM 11/1/1105. 22. Addo-Fening, “Customary Land-Tenure System in Akyem-Abuakwa,” 97. 23. Arbitration Award, PRAAD, Accra, ADM 11/1/1105; Paul Jenkins Abstracts pp. 522, 537, Eisenschmid’s Report, December 31 and July 14, 1868. 24. Heidenbote No. 6, June 1886. Archival Document deposited in the Department of History Library, University of Ghana. 25. Addo-Fening, “Customary Land-Tenure System in Akyem-Abuakwa,” 102; Nii Amaa Ollenu, Ollenu’s Principles of Customary Land Law in Ghana (Birming- ham: CAL Press, 1985), 24. 26. G. K. Nukunya, Tradition and Change: An Introduction to Sociology (Accra: Ghana Universities Press, 1992), 99. 27. J. B. Danquah, The Akim Abuakwa Handbook (London: Foster Groom, 1928), 43. 28. Antony G. Hopkins, An Economic History of West Africa (London: Longman, 1973); Kofi Dumehasie, “Asamankese Crisis of 1919–1939: An Evaluation of West- ern Economic Forces and their Impact on Akyem Abuakwa’s Socio-Political Institutions” (MPhil diss., University of Ghana, 1997). 29. Kojo Sebastien Amanor, The New Frontier Farmer’s Response to Land Degrada- tion: A West African Study (London: Longman, 1973), 128. 30. Marion Johnson, “Migrant’s Progress,” Bulletin of the Ghana Geographical Associ- ation 9 (1964): 4. Pawning was a practice in precolonial times where debtors send one of their relatives to live with their creditors so that when they pay off their debt, that relative would be released to them. It was a kind of surety or mortgage in modern parlance. 31. Begoro-Jakite Land Dispute, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1/1452, 41. 32. Petition from Mate-Kole to Ag. D.C. of Akuse, November 26, 1919, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1/1453, 16. 33. Chrystaller’s Report for the Third Quarter of 1868, September 30, 1865, Jenkins MSS, 250. 34. Meeting held at Koforidua, August 20, 1895, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1122, 41. 108  Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah

35. C. N. Curling to S. N. A., June 26, 1908, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1/145, 32; also see, Elders and People of Begoro to Napier Curling, May 15, 1907, PRAAD Koforidua, ADM 29/6/2, 71. 36. Enquiry into Destoolment of Gyamera, January 13, 1908, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1/1457, 23. 37. Enquiry into Destoolment of Kwaku Tupri, December 20, 1913, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1/1457, 37. Arbitration into complaints against the Nifahene, Kwame Oko- ampa (1908–1910) of Asiakwa on April 22, 1910, revealed that he sold considerable stool lands to J. J. Fisher and neglected to render any accounts of the said transactions, an action that according to the arbitration was contrary to native scheme of things. See, Arbitration into Complaints against Chief Okoampa, April 22, 1910, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/747, 75. This generated serious unrest in the Asiakwa town. Besides, Kukurantumi, the seat of the Adontenhene of Abuakwa also leased a substantial amount of its land in the Ahabante area to migrant Akuapem farmers in the 1880s. 38. Frank Afari, “Nana Sir Ofori Atta and the Process of Educational Change in the Gold Coast, 1912–1943” (MPhil diss., University of Ghana, 2011), 27. 39. Polly Hill, “The History of the Migration of Ghana Cocoa Farmers,”Transactions of the Historical Society of Ghana 55 (1959): 14. 40. J. Muller to Basel, March 1893, Jenkins MSS, 77. 41. Muller to Basel, Jenkins MSS, 77. 42. Evidence of Simeon Edmund Sackey, January 13, 1908, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1/457, 13. The impact of the cocoa industry on Akyem Abukwa was enormous. It sped up the pace of land alienation in the state. In 1893, 80 percent of Abuakwa territory still consisted of “primeval or high forest”; by 1933, 33 percent of the total land area of Abuakwa was under cocoa cultivation. Throughout the 1890s and into the early twentieth century, migrant farmers from the colony continued to purchase Abuakwa stool lands. Akuapem migrant farmers bought extensive tracts of forest lands from the Akanteng, Asamankese, and Apapam stools until by 1933 they had covered twenty-six out of the twenty-seven- kilometer Asamankese-Suhum Road with cocoa farms. See, Addo-Fening, Akyem Abuakwa, 242. Such was the outrageous manner of land commercialization that between 1900 and 1914 most Abuakwa lands were alienated and purchased by migrant farmers. Likewise, land in the Asamankese area was rushed by the Fante, Ga, Shai, Ewe, Akuapem, Krobo, Anum, and Awutu farmers. Some of them bought their lands outright, whereas others acquired them through leasehold agreements. See, Hill, “Ghana Cocoa Farmers,” 22. 43. N. R Junner, “Gold in the Gold Coast,” Gold Coast Geological Survey Memoir 4 (Accra: Ghana Publishing Corporation, 1935), 67; see also, Patrick Agbesinyale, Ghana’s Gold Rush and Regional Development (Dortmund: Spring Research Series, 2003). 44. E. A. Ofosu-Mensah, The Economic, Social and Political Impact of Mining on Akyem Abuakwa from the Precolonial Era up to 1943 (New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2017). The Politics of Property Rights  109

45. Ag. C. E. P. to Colonial Secretary on List of Concessions and Options in the Bir- rim District, 1 July 1920, PRAAD Koforidua, ADM 29/6/42, 78; also see, Addo- Fening, Akyem Abuakwa, 245. 46. Extracts from Stock Exchange Year Book 1934, AASA 6/14, 14. The A.S.T. (later CAST) concession measured thirteen square kilometers. For £1,200, CAST secured the lease of a concession for a period of ninety-nine years with the right to mine and appropriate all diamonds precious stones and other minerals of every kind and description. Whatsoever is found in, upon or under the land and premises. In return, the company offered to pay a nominal annual rent of £500 (paid in equal quarterly installments) and an annual sum equivalent to 5 percent of the net profits, if any, in royalties to the Akwatia Stool. See, Colonial Secretary to Ag. C. E. P., March 4, 1925, PRAAD Koforidua, ADM 29/6/42, 33. 47. Nana Ofori Atta to John Saxton, Mining Engineer of the Russo-Asiatic Company, June 17, 1923, AASA 6/5, 46. 48. Government of the Gold Coast, Report of the Mines Department on the Mineral Industry for the Year 1934–35, Balme Library, University of Ghana. 49. Norman Ross Junner, “The Diamond Deposits of the Gold Coast,” Geological Bul- letin 12 (1943): 1–52. 50. Gold Coast Colonial Annual Report 1903, PRAAD Accra, ADM 5/1/9, 19. 51. David Kimble, Political History of Ghana: The Rise of Nationalism 1850–1928 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1963), 21. 52. “Return of Concession Rents Payable at the Eastern Province,” January 23, 1932, PRAAD Koforidua, ADM 29/6/42, 19. Also see Addo-Fening, “Customary Land Tenure System in Akyem Abuakwa.” 53. Answer by Hon. Ofori Atta to Petition of Barima Kwaku Amoah, November 4, 1921, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1105, 47; also see, Addo-Fening, “Customary Land Tenure System in Akyem Abuakwa,” 98. Greed on the part of some Abuakwa chiefs made them grant lands put under cultivation as cocoa, coffee, and palm plantations cultivated by their own people for European concessionaires. These products were never harvested but ended up being granted as leases to the concession hunters without consulting their elders or without accounting for the sale money. See, Explanatory Remarks, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1/1197, 34. Both the sellers and the buyers of land resorted to dubious and fraudulent means of dis- posing of land. For example, the concessionaires secretly annexed and adjoined lands without the knowledge of the African chiefs. Because these land leases covered very large areas and were done at a time when Abuakwa lacked effective control mechanisms, the loss of land through such dubious means is quite obvi- ous. Thus, too much land was given away for paltry sums. See, G. E. Macdonald to Ag. Colonial Secretary, May 16, 1901, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1/747, 83. 54. Addo-Fening. “Customary Land Tenure System in Akyem Abuakwa.” 55. “Enquiry into Destoolment of Kwaku Tupri,” ADM 11/1/1457(PRAAD Accra). 56. J. B. Danquah. Epistle to the Educated Youngman of Akim Abuakwa (Accra, Ghana: Palladium Press, 1929). 110  Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah

57. Danquah, Epistle to the Educated Youngman of Akim Abuakwa. 58. Kathryn Firmin-Sellers, The Transformation of Property Rights in the Gold Coast (Cambridge University Press, 1996). 59. Colonial Secretary’s Letters, ADM 11/1/1095.PRAAD Accra. See also Dumehasie, “Asamankese Crisis of 1919–1939.” 60. Evidence of Kwabena Poh, Linguist of Osino before Captain Soden, March 3, 1904. ADM 11/1/1453. PRAAD Accra. 61. S.N.A.’s Documents, ADM 11/1/1428. PRAAD Accra. 62. Dumehasie, “Asamankese Crisis of 1919–1939.” 63. Addo-Fening, Akyem Abuakwa. 64. Afari, “Nana Sir Ofori Atta.” 65. Robert Addo-Fening, “Chieftaincy and Issues of Good Governance, Accountabil- ity and Development: A Case Study of Akyem Abuakwa under Okyenhene Ofori Atta I (1912–1943)” (Manuscripts deposited at the Institute of African Studies [Asafo Office], University of Ghana Legon, 2002). 66. PRAAD (Accra) Adm 11/1197; Explanatory Remarks. 67. Letter from Ofori Atta to Tafohene, April 7, 1917, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1/1453, 32. 68. Firmin-Sellers, The Transformation of Property Rights, 65. 69. Explanatory Remarks, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1197, 73. 70. Explanatory Remarks, ADM 11/1/1197, 75. 71. Robert Addo-Fening, “Customary Land Tenure in Akyem Abuakwa,” Universitas: An Interfaculty Journal 9 (University of Ghana, 1987). 72. D. C. Birrim’s September Quarterly Report, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1/636, 219. 73. Addo-Fening, “Customary Land Tenure System in Akyem Abuakwa,” 99. 74. Ibid. The chiefs, unanimous in their judgement against the Tafo chief, ordered him to pay £96 to the paramount chief. 75. Answer by Hon. Ofori Atta to Petition, November 4, 1921, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1/1105, 95; also see, D. C. Birrim’s September Quarterly Report, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1/636, 119. 76. Rose Ako Brew, “Asamankese Dispute,” (BA diss., University of Ghana, 1981), 15. 77. Afari, “Nana Sir Ofori Atta.” 78. Notes of interview held at the S.N.A.’s Office, March 30, 1922, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1/1105, 13. Nana Ofori Atta signed as principal conveyor in his capacity as the paramount chief of Akyem Abuakwa. The land was leased out for a consid- eration sum of £25 and an annual rent of £120 for ninety-nine years. See, Arbitra- tion Award Exhibit “V,” September 23, 1929, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1/1105, 49. 79. CSO 21/6/39. Land Tenure in Akim Abuakwa, Customary Law Relating, PRAAD, Accra. Also see Dumehasie, “Asamankese Crisis of 1919–1939.” 80. Kwaku Amoah to Ofori Atta, June 27, 1921, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1/1105, 39. 81. History of Asamankese Disputes, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1627, 78. 82. Addo-Fening, “The Asamankese Disputes,” 28. 83. History of Asamankese Disputes, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1627, 83. The Politics of Property Rights  111

84. The authority of the Okyenhene was persistently disregarded to the extent that the two chiefs raised their status by acquiring Stool paraphernalia, which, under native custom, they were not entitled to. See MacLenna Minutes, August 31, 1935, PRAAD Accra, ADM 11/1/1105, 10. 85. History of Asamankese Disputes, PRAAD, Accra, ADM 11/1627. Arbitration Award, PRAAD, Accra, ADM 11/1/1105. Also see Dumehasie, “Asamankese Crisis of 1919–1939.” 86. History of Asamankese Disputes, PRAAD, Accra, ADM 11/1627. Also see Firmin- Sellers, The Transformation of Property Rights. 87. Richard Rathbone, Murder & Politics in Colonial Ghana (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1993). See also Richard Rathbone, “Murder & Politics in Colonial Ghana,” Journal of African History 35, no. 2 (1994). 88. Richard Rathbone, “A Murder in the Colonial Gold Coast: Law and Politics in the 1940s,” Journal of African History 30, no. 3 (1989): 445–461. 89. Jeff Grischow, “Social Capital, Chiefs and Agrarian Change in Southern Ghana,” Journal of Agrarian Change 8, no. 1 (2008): 64–93; also see, Jeff Grischow and Glenn McKnight, “The Power of Social Capital: Historical Studies from Colonial Uganda and the Gold Coast,” Canadian Journal of African Studies 42, no. 1 (2008): 98–128. 90. Sara Berry, Chiefs Know Their Boundaries: Essays on Property, Power and the Past in Asante, 1896–1996 (Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2001), 195. 91. Simensen Jarle, “Commoners, Chiefs and Colonial Government: British Policy and Local Politics in Akim Abuakwa” (PhD diss., University of Trondheim 1975), 184–86. 92. Edsman M. Bjorrn, Lawyers in Gold Coast Politics c. 1900–1945: From Mensah Sarbah to J. B. Danquah (Brno, Czech Republic: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 1979), 135, 140. 93. Rathbone Richard, Murder and Politics in Colonial Ghana (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993). 94. Martin Wright, The Gold Coast Legislative Council (London: Faber & Faber, 1947). 95. Diamonds and Other Minerals Discovered in Akyem Abuakwa, PRAAD, Koforidua, AASA/6/14. 96. Boys and Girls Students Sent out by Okyenhene for Education or Employment, PRAAD, Koforidua, AASA/11/52. See also Afari, “Nana Sir Ofori Atta.” 97. Land Turner in Abuakwa customary law relating 1932–1939, page 30–32. File No 476/37. S.F1 PRAAD Accra COS 21/6/39. 98. Kwaku Amoah to Honorable Colonial Secretary, June 17, 1931, Accra. PRAAD Accra Adm 11/1/1630 . . . no 25/KA/1931. 99. Ag. C.E.P to Colonial Secretary on List of Concessions and Options in Birrim District, July 1, 1920, PRAAD Koforidua, ADM 29/6/42, 78; also see, Nana Ofori Atta to John Saxton, Mining Engineer of the Russo-Asiatic Company, June 17, 1923, AASA 6/5, 46. See also, Government of the Gold Coast, Report of the Mines 112  Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah

Department on the Mineral Industry for the Year 1934–35, Balme Library, Uni- versity of Ghana. 100. Secretary to CAST to Nana Ofori Atta I, April 25, 1933 AASA/6/4. 101. Jacob Simons Notes, December 25, 1856. PRAAD Accra, Adm 11/1/1-94. 102. Afari, “Nana Sir Ofori Atta.” 103. Wright, The Gold Coast Legislative Council, 69. 104. State Treasury Bylaws of Akyem Abuakwa, October 22, 1928. PRAAD, Accra, Adm. 11/928. 105. The Legislative Council Debates, December 4, 1930, 393. Deposited in the Balme Library, Africana Section, University of Ghana. 106. Gold, Diamonds and Other Minerals, PRAAD, Koforidua, AASA/6/24. 107. A Deed, PRAAD, Accra, ADM 11/1/1440. 108. Known as Daniel Augustus Opoku in private life, “Nana Ofori Atta II” became his stool name, succeeding Nana Ofori Atta I after his demise as the overlord of the Akyem Abuakwa traditional state. 109. Boys and Girls Students Sent out by Okyenhene for Education or Employment, PRAAD, Accra, AASA/11/52. 110. Boys and Girls Students Sent out by Okyenhene for Education or Employ- ment, PRAAD, Accra, AASA/11/42. 111. Walter Austin to Nana Ofori Atta II, AASA/3/14. 112. Gold, Diamonds and Other Minerals, AASA, Kyebi, AASA/6/24. 113. Addo-Fening, Akyem Abuakwa. 114. Ibid. 115. Firmin-Sellers, The Transformation of Property Rights. 116. Enquiry into Destoolment of Kwaku Tupri, PRAAD, Accra, ADM 11/1/1457. 117. Geo Akuffo Dampare, Sir Ofori Atta’s Last Days (Begoro, Ghana: Kyebi Palace Archives, 1978). 118. Addo-Fening, Akyem Abuakwa. 119. Schools in Akyem Abuakwa including Trade School, AASA, Kyebi, AASA/11/32. 120. Robert Addo-Fening, ABUSCO at 70: Historical Antecedents (Kyebi, Ghana: C88 Printers, 2007); Schools in Akyem Abuakwa, AASA, Kyebi, AASA/11/29. 121. Frank Afari, “Nana Sir Ofori Atta I (1881–1943): Traditional Ruler and Legislator” (Long essay, Department of History, University of Ghana, June 2008). 122. Schools in Akyem Abuakwa, AASA, Kyebi, AASA/11/29. 123. Akim Abuakwa District Education Report by the State Treasurer, PRAAD, Accra, R.G. 3/5/607. 124. Afari, “Nana Sir Ofori Atta.” 125. Schools in Akyem Abuakwa including Trade School, PRAAD, Kyebi, AASA/11/32. 126. Ibid. 127. Ibid. 128. Addo-Fening, ABUSCO at 70. 129. Afari, “Nana Sir Ofori Atta I.” 130. D. C. Birrim’s Annual Report, PRAAD, Koforidua, ADM 29/6/10. The Politics of Property Rights  113

131. Speech by His Excellency the Governor at Kibbi, PRAAD, Accra, ADM 11/1778. 132. Afari, “Nana Sir Ofori Atta I.” 133. Arbitration Award, PRAAD, Accra, ADM 11/1/1105. Diary of D. C. Birrim, PRAAD, Koforidua, ADM 26/4/49. 134. Addo-Fening, Akyem Abuakwa. See also Arbitration Award, PRAAD, Accra, ADM 11/1/1105. 135. Arbitration Award, PRAAD, Accra, ADM 11/1/1105. Diary of D. C. Birrim, PRAAD, Koforidua, ADM 26/4/49. 136. Diary of D. C. Birrim, PRAAD, Koforidua, ADM 26/4/49. 137. Eastern Provincial Council Minutes, PRAAD, Accra, ADM 11/1799. 138. Address by Hon. A. C. Duncan-Johnstone, PRAAD, Koforidua, ADM 29/6/63. 139. Eastern Provincial Council Minutes, PRAAD, Accra, ADM 11/1799. 140. Memo on Asamankese Stool Treasury, PRAAD, Accra, CSO 21/22/116. 141. Addo-Fening, “Chieftaincy and Issues of Good Governance.”

emmanuel ababio ofosu-mensah is a senior lecturer and head of the Depart- ment of History at University of Ghana, Legon. He is an economic and social historian with special interest in mining in West Africa and issues on migration in the sub-region. He is an alumnus of the University of Ghana and has published extensively in various peer reviewed academic journals. He is the author of the book titled The Economic, Social and Political Impact of Mining on Akyem Abuakwa from the Pre-Colonial Era up to 1943, published by Nova Science Pub- lishers, New York.

View publication stats