The Land Factor in the Konkomba- Nanumba Crisis Of 1981 A Historical Perspective Cliff S. Maasole Dept. of Social, Political and Historical Studies University for Development Studies Wa, Ghana Email: [email protected] doi:10.4314/gjds.v8i1.3 Abstract In post-independent Ghana, over twenty ethnic conflicts have erupted in Northern Ghana. These conflicts can however be traced as far back to colonial land policies and treatments of ethnic interests of that part of Ghana. The Konkomba, in particular, have been involved in many such conflicts, largely over land and related resource. The period between the 1980s and 1990s were particularly tumultuous due the many inter-ethnic conflicts and armed confrontations. This paper examines one of such conflicts, which occurred in 1981 between theK onkomba and the Nanumba, both of the Northern Region of Ghana. It focuses on the historical antecedents of the war from pre-colonial to date to demonstrate how land has been a key issue. The analysis is informed by the results of an in-depth study that relied on secondary sources, archival materials and oral interviews. The study found that underneath the seemly cordial relations that had existed between the Konkomba and Nanumba in Nanun11prior to 1981 were tensions over territorial claims and land rights. It explains how mis-interpretation of ownership created the conditions for the war. It dwells in particular on the Alhassan Committee Report of 1978 and its role in inflaming the sentiments resulting in the violent outburst of 1981. Key Words: Identity, Ethnic Conflicts, Territorial Claims, Land Policies, Ownership 11 Refers to the Nanumba Traditional Area GJDS, Vol. 8, No. 1, May 2011 33 C. S. Maasole: The Land Factor in the Konkomba-Nanumba Crisis Introduction British colonial policy in the Gold Coast in the late 1940s underwent a drastic transformation both at the local and the central government levels. At the same time, the prevailing traditional or ethnic system in the country remained unchanged. The dichotomies between the two systems and the overlaps of the jurisdictions (formal and traditional), with implications for the ethnic sovereigns, territorial claims and resource rights created volatile conditions for potential conflicts. This situation sparked off old time rivalries among some of the ethnic groups even as inter-ethnic conflicts were broadened to include religio-political factors. The differences in the indigenous social structure, of people co-existing in one formal administrative area had crystallized into fear, hatred and resentment among some of the ethnic groups (Apter, 1963). Even though almost all West African states, including Ghana, achieved independence within highly centralized political structures, in that political evolution, there were diverse elite dimensions that included ethnic dominance. Ethnicity remained resilient in spite of the colonial influences (Zartman, 1997; Akyeampong, 2006). This emphasizes the importance of group identity based on such attributes as a common origin, history, language, religion, nationality and race. Ethnicity is symbolic and mythic (Bacho, 2005). There are socio-economic and political processes that are linked with ethnicity. The central issue, then, has to do with the role ethnicity plays in these socio-economic and political processes and their impact on society in general (Bacho, 2005). Individuals, groups, clans, classes and different organizations in society will always have competing interests. Conflicts arise when group interests clash and/or are seriously threatened without visible signs of peaceful settlement or compromise among the feuding parties except for the use of some force. By the end of the 1970s, the socio-economic and political processes in Northern Ghana had built up sufficient tension to explode in ethnic conflicts and armed confrontations. Odotei and Awedoba (2006) report of twenty-two inter-ethnic conflicts inN orthern Ghana between 1980 and 1994 alone. It is hardly an exaggeration to submit that land and its resources are such core economic issues that can, and have led to conflict and armed confrontation between and among various ethnic or other social groups in competition. Oyeneye and Peil (1992) have argued that ethnic conflict is often increased because of land for expanding agriculture. They have pointed at the Tiv and the Jukun of central Nigeria as an example of the people who have been fighting over land since 1959. This paper examines the extent to which land served as a line of fracture between the so- called “acephalous, segmentary, non-centralised, and without chiefs” groups of people, specifically theK onkomba, and the structured, centralized and with chiefs groups such as the Nanumba, in the Northern Region of Ghana. Tracing the historical antecedents it discusses how the issue of land has contributed to an inter-ethnic conflict in 1981 in which the Konkomba and the Nanumba resorted to pitched battles involving the use of lethal weapons in Northern Ghana. 34 GJDS, Vol. 8, No. 1, May 2011 C. S. Maasole: The Land Factor in the Konkomba-Nanumba Crisis The analysis has been informed by data obtained from secondary sources in the form of published and unpublished works. The published materials consist of books, articles, journals and magazines, as well as archival materials. Archival material was obtained from the Public Records and Archival Administration Department (PRAAD) and official documents including official correspondence,A nnual and Northern Territories Reports from the inception of colonial rule in 1898 through to independence in 1957 to the year 2000. Such periodization has fostered the analysis of causal, countervailing and impact factors. This was complemented with primary data using oral sources. This took the form of oral interviews conducted in Tamale, Salaga, Kpandai, Bimbilla, Yendi, Saboba and Nalerigu in 2000 involving citizens. Additionally, key informant interviews were conducted with teachers, nurses, the clergy and religious, public and civil servants of various ranks to constitute the bedrock for this study. The Konkomba and Land Issues in Northern Ghana The Pre-Colonial Era The circumstances that led to the duel between the Konkomba and the Nanumba has been underpinned by struggles for land.12 It has been indicated that even though the Konkomba claim to be the original occupants of most of the land now held by the Dagomba before the coming of the Europeans, they did not regard it as theirs. Tait (1964: 30) explains that “when a Konkomba moves to the Kulkpene River, south of Saambu and in the chiefdom of Miong, he does not consult a diviner since ‘the land is for the Dagomba’. He does not seek an Earth Shrine. It is only within Konkomba land proper that the question of new shrines arise.” This would suggest that the Konkomba have since the European period laid claim to the absolute title to land only in Kekpokpam (i.e., Konkombaland). Elsewhere, they understood that the land did not belong to them. The Colonial Era One consequence about the Scramble and Partition of Northern Ghana by European Powers between the late nineteenth and the early twentieth centuries was that the Konkomba came wholesale under German rule. As regards land legislation, by 1910, the Germans in Togo had arrogated to themselves the right to occupy what they thought was ‘ownerless’ land. But as Amenumey (1969: 633-634) has remarked “the idea that there was any ownerless land in the country was a fallacy, because all land even if currently unoccupied was owned by some family or sub-tribe.” 12 OfficialL etter from Hon. Ibrahim Haruna, Regional Minister, Northern Region, to His Excellency, Dr. Hila Limann, President of the Republic of Ghana, Ref. No. SCLG.12, dated 19th June, 1981. GJDS, Vol. 8, No. 1, May 2011 35 C. S. Maasole: The Land Factor in the Konkomba-Nanumba Crisis However, regarding land in Northern Togo, where Kekpokpam was located, there was no wrangling between the Germans and the local population. Crowder (1969:246) maintains that the Germans did not allow Dagomba control over the Konkomba. This strengthened the latter’s belief that they had absolute title to land in Kekpokpam. In the aftermath of the First World War, the Germans were forced to leave Togo. Kekpokpam was partitioned between France and Britain and the Konkomba were divided and ruled by the British on the Gold Coast side and French on the Togo side. This paper is interested in the side under British rule. Coming under British jurisdiction in the Gold Coast, now Ghana, the Konkomba were forced under its controversial policies and especially so for Northern Ghana. Much more controversial however was the land policy embarked on by the British administration in the Northern Territories (now Northern Ghana) of the Gold Coast. Der (1975: 127) notes: One aspect of colonial rule that was never clearly resolved by the British Administration in the Northern Territories of the Gold Coast was the question of land tenure. Some colonial administrators deduced from the imposition of British rule in the North that the land belonged to the government. Others held the view that the government had no automatic title to the land and that the land belonged to the indigenous peoples. These latter officials believed theG overnment could only act as a custodian over the lands and should utilize such land it needed for administration purposes by leasing them. In the period of British colonialism, diverse endeavours were consciously made to regularize government position as regards the ambiguity in land ownership. Der (1975) and Bening (1975) have pointed out that through a series of ordinances, successive Governors distorted the land tenure system resulting in the virtual confiscation of the lands of the people of the North to the British colonial government. According to them the colonial government administered land in the Northern Territories differently from Asante and the Colony through the Chief Commissioner with varying degrees of traditional authority’s participation to satisfy the colonial interests.