Re: FINAL POSITION OF ABUDU FAMILY ON THE PEACE BUILDING PROCESS

The Abudu Royal family wishes to express our sincere gratitude to your Committee for the effort you have made to find lasting solution to the protracted conflict in Dagbon. After the last sitting of the Committee on November 6 and 7, the family met to deliberate on the peace process. The family recognized that there is a stalemate in the mediation process as a result of the entrenched position held by our cousins from the Andani family that the funeral of the late Ya-Na Mahamadu Abdulai cannot be perform in the Gbewaa Palace as the funeral of a Ya-Na. The Abudu family wish to reiterate our position that under no circumstances shall the family ever agree to perform the final funeral rites of the late Ya-Na Mahamadu Abdulai in any manner other than the way a Ya-Na’s funeral is perform according to Dagbon custom and tradition. We shall advance here the reasons why we continue to hold this position with strong conviction. We will also attempt to explain to you why the position of the Andani family is untenable and a recipe for future dispute and conflict in the Dagbon kingdom.

Performance of Funeral as Ya-Na

The late Ya-Na Mahamadu Abdulai was the overlord of Dagbon from 1969-1974. He was uncustomarily removed from office by a military decree based on the findings and recommendations of the Ollenu Committee established by the Acheampong military dictatorship. The late king took the matter to the court system to seek redress of the injustice. An Accra Appeals Court which heard the case rejected the grounds for his removal from the throne and ordered that he should be reinstated as Ya-Na. However, the defendant in the case, the late Ya-Na Yakubu Andani II, took the case to the Supreme Court for review.

Whereas the Supreme Court failed to uphold the ruling of the Appeals Court, it ordered that: “…having regard to the Dagbon Constitution that deskinment is unknown in Dagbon, all persons who have ever occupied the Nam of Yendi shall without regard to how they ceased to be Ya-Na be regarded as former Ya-Nas. Consequently, their sons do qualify for appointment to the gate skins of Savelegu, Karaga and Mion.” (see Appendix A)

It is instructive to note that the same Supreme Court’s ruling which upheld the Ollenu Committee’s findings and ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, also ordered that the defendant, the late Ya-Na Mahamadu Abdulai, should be regarded as former Ya-Na and his children should have the full rights as sons of a former Ya-Na.

In furtherance of the ruling of the Supreme Court, the PNDC government initiated a reconciliation process to give meaning to the Court’s ruling and forge unity and peace in Dagbon. The outcome of the reconciliation process also informed our position on the performance of the funeral of the late Ya-Na Mahamadu Abdulai. A memorandum signed by representatives from both families, including the late Ya-Na Yakubu Andani, reaffirmed their commitment to the ruling of the Supreme Court and pledged that:

“On the death of Ex Ya-Na Mahamadu Abudulai, he should be accorded the full funeral rites of a Ya-Na in the light of the Supreme Court’s Ruling of 17th December, 1986.” (see Appendix B)

Your Majesties’ Committee relied on the above quoted legal provisions to reached the conclusion in your ‘Final Peace Agreement’ that, “…Naa Yakubu Andani himself appended his signature to the ‘Reconciliation Agreement’ of 1987 which provided that Naa Mahamadu Abudulai should be accorded the status and entitilements of a Ya Naa at death…We therefore conclude that the funeral should take place at the old Gbewaa Palace…” (see Appendix C).

It is again instructive to note that based on this conclusion, your Committee came out with a program detailing the timeframe within which the Abudu family should occupy the Gbewaa palace to perform the funeral of the late Ya-Na Mahamadu Abdulai. (see Appendix D). Our position on the performance of the funeral of the late king in the Gbewaa Palace is, therefore, in line with your Committee’s recommendations.

Based on the aforementioned, we wish to state categorically that there is preponderance of evidence to support our claim that the funeral of the late Ya-Na Mahamadu Abdulai should be perform in the Gbewaa palace unconditionally.

Why the Andani Family Position is Untenable:

Our cousins from the Andani family have falsely reported to your Committee that it would be against Dagbon custom to perform the funeral of the late Ya-Na Mahamadu Abdulai in the Gbewaa Palace. They contend that their position is supported by precedence of Ya-Nas whose funerals were not performed in the Gbewaa Palace because they did not die as sitting Ya-Nas. We wish to state here unequivocally, that the precedence so presented by our cousins is false and misleading, and not consistent with the circumstances surrounding the case of the late Ya-Na Mahamadu Abdulai. In the first place, no Ya-Na in the history of the Dagbon kingdom has ever been removed from office by a military dictatorship. Secondly, none of the so called precedence cases made it to the Supreme Court for redress of injustice and abomination of custom. Above all, none of the said Ya-Nas had the honor of the highest court of the land recognizing them as former Ya-Nas and bestowing upon their children the inalienable rights as princes of the Dagbon royal skin. Our cousins are comparing ‘apples and oranges’ here.

Moreover, our cousins’ position is highly untenable because it will complicate the status of the late Ya-Na and create opportunity for the Andani family to question the eligibility of his sons as heir apparent to the throne. The performance of a funeral in Dagbon custom is a matter of principle guided by time-tested customary rites. As observed by Ghana’s first President, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, “Principles are indivisible…any attempt to compromise on matters of principles is the abandonment of principle itself”. We shall not compromise on how and where to perform the funeral of the late Ya-Na Mahamadu Abdulai. We refused to be party to the diabolical agenda of the Andani family to kill and eliminate the Abudu gate.

False and Misleading claims by the Andanis:

The Andani family has consistently provided your Committee with false and misleading evidence to support their argument that the funeral of the late Naa Mahamadu Abdulai should not be perform in the Gbewaa Palace. In the first place, they contend that their position is based on the fact that Na Mahamadu was removed from office by the Supreme Court and that he died out of office as an ordinary man. What is misleading about this position is the fact that the same Supreme Court, as stated above, also ruled that it was against Dagbon custom to impeach a sitting Ya Na and remove him from office. This position of the Supreme Court is supported by the only living Dagbon constitution promulgated in 1930. The Dagbon constitution vividly captured the unanimous position of dagbon chiefs and elders that diskinment is unknown in Dagbon tradition. This position supports the Supreme Court’s ruling that Na Mahamadu Abdulai IV was a former Ya-Na.

Secondly, the Andanis continue to throw dust in the eyes of your Majesties by their false and misleading precedence of ‘former Ya-Nas’ whose funerals were not performed in the Gbewaa Palace. The three names that consistently feature in their list of Ya-Nas who fall within this category include Dahmani Tampion Karigu, Bukali Kulkarije and Bukali Jia (Bofo). It is amazing that the Andani family will provide your august Committee with information that they know to be false and misleading to stop the Abudu family from performing the funeral of Na Mahamadu in the Gbewaa Palace. As mentioned above, the chiefs and elders of Dagbon were unanimous on the fact that diskinment is alien to Dagbon. The surprised reaction on the faces of Dagbon chiefs and elders upon the mention of the word ‘impeachment’ was a clear demonstration and evidence that none of the chiefs and elders so assembled in 1930 recognized Dahmani Tampion Karigu and Bukali Kulkarije as former Ya-Nas. We state this because the time-line provided by the Andanis as the period the two chiefs funerals were perform outside the Gbewaa Palace preceded the 1930 meeting of Dagbon chiefs and elders. If the chiefs and elders of Dagbon recognized them as Ya Nas who were removed and died out of office they would not have expressed such total disgust and disapproval of the doctrine of impeachment. (see Appendix E, Dagbon Constitution)

Moreover, the Supreme Court accepted Tamakloe’s book, “A Brief History of Dagbamba People”, as the most authentic account of Dagbon history in 1986. This was largely based on the fact that the book was written at a time that Dagbon was united, devoid of any factionalism. Unlike other subsequent books that were published against the background of intense and sustained factionalism in the Dagbon Kingdom, it is generally agreed that Tamakloe’s book was not informed by ulterior motives. In this book, Tamakloe has a list of all Ya-Nas in the history of Dagbon up to the date of publication of the book. Conspicuously missing in the list are the names of Dahmani Tampion Karigu and Bukali Kulkarije. (see Appendix F)

Further more, in his book, “History and Traditions of Dagbon” published in 2004, Ibrahim Mahama, a self-proclaimed member of the royal Andani family of Dagbon, solicitor and legal adviser to the late king, Ya-Na Yakubu II, also failed to list Dahmani Tampion Karigu and Bukali Kulkarije as former Ya-Nas. (see Appendix G).

On the case of Bukali Jia (Bofo), he was recommended for the throne by Dagbon chiefs and elders assembled in Tamale , but he failed to ascend to the throne on grounds of old-age and ill-health. A substantive Ya-Na was properly and customarily installed in Yendi. Bukali Jia (Bofo) returned to Savelegu where he remained the substantive chief until his death. He, therefore, died in Savelegu as the substantive chief of Savelegu and his funeral was performed accordingly. At no point in his lifetime did Bukali Jia (Bofo) moved to Yendi to act as Ya-Na. It is highly disingenuous for the Andanis to provide his name to your Committee as a former Ya-Na when they know that information to be false and misleading. The direct grandfather of the late Na-Yakubu Andani II, Na Mahama-Kpema, reminded Dagbon chiefs and elders during his reign that Bukali Jia (Bofo) was never a Ya-Na and that his first son, Vo-Na Imoro, was not qualify to ascend to the skin of Savelegu which was reserved for direct sons of former Ya-Nas. Na Mahama-Kpema was a biological half-brother of the said Bukali Jia (Bofo).

It is instructive for your Committee to note that at the call of custom when former Ya-Nas are sung for their heroic deeds in chronological order without the privilege of skipping any former Ya-Na, none of the three names provided to your Committee by the Andanis is mention by the drummers.

Finally, the Andanis have provided your Committee with the misleading information that the late king, Yakubu Andani II, reneged on his approval of Na Mahamadu Abdulai as former Ya-Na under the Reconciliation Agreement. This information is misleading because your Committee is fully aware that an Executive Instrument in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding endorsed by all parties cannot be abrogated by an individual, not even a Ya-Na. The late king failed to follow due process to change provisions of a memorandum of agreement he appended his signature which the then PNDC ruling government adopted as an Executive Instrument. The document, as agreed and sanctioned by the two royal gates in 1987, is still a valid and working legal instrument today. What is more, the said memorandum was not a discretionary agreement but an agreement predicated on a Supreme Court ruling. It was, therefore, beyond the power of the late king to unilaterally amend any provision of the agreement.

Abudu Family Compromised for Pease:

A fundamental trust of conflict mediation is the willingness of both parties to compromise on their grievances to give peace a chance. Ever since your Committee was established to mediate in the Dagbon conflict, the Abudu family has consistently been at the giving end of compromise without the benefit of receiving any gain from your Committee. On the other hand, the Andani family which has remained adamant and uncompromising has been beneficiary of the peace dividend so far coming out of our generosity and compromise. In the first place, the Abudu family compromised on the issue of allowing the Andani family to unilaterally offer sacrifice and perform rituals to the gods and ancestors of Dagbon at the beginning of the mediation process. Secondly, the Abudu family yielded over our protest to the place where the fallen king should be buried. We allowed the king to be buried in the Royal Mausoleum instead of following the Dagbon custom and tradition of burying him in accordance with the war victims mode of burial. The Abudu family also compromised on the building of a temporary palace; the erection of a pavilion for the temporary palace; and the installation of regent. The installation of regent was particularly a bitter pill for the Abudu family to swallow because it was a clear violation of the order of performing traditional Dagbon funerals. We compromised on all of these for the sake of peace. We wrongly believed that your Committee was guided by a win/win principle in conflict resolution. Unfortunately, your Committee has failed to see the need for the Andani family to also sacrifice and compromise, just for the first time, so that you can satisfy the Abudu family’s grievances in order to keep us on board the peace process.

Conclusion:

It is now crystal clear that the Andani family is not interested in assisting your Committee in your attempt to find lasting solution to the Dagbon conflict. We strongly believe that the Committee has preponderance of evidence at this time to support the implementation of the ‘Roadmap to Peace’ and the ‘Final Peace Agreement’. We note with concern your Committee’s sudden change of mind on the issue of where to perform the funeral. The Abudu family unanimously stands by the negative answer you received from the Nanton-Na in 2008 and the Tolon Regent at our last meeting in November 2009 to your Committee’s new position. If the Committee cannot proceed with the implementation of the ‘Final Peace Agreement’ unconditionally, we humbly wish to suggest that you should advice the government accordingly for the appropriate action by government to enforce the existing law and agreements on the Dagbon dispute. We wish to state that what is needed now is not further debate on Dagbon custom, but strict implementation of existing law and agreements on the dispute. We would not continue to subject ourselves to a process that seems to be going nowhere. The family is resolute on our position and shall not attend any meeting that is not intended to discuss the implementation of the ‘Final Peace Agreement’.

We continue to pray for God’s guidance of your Committee. We pray that He grants you the strength and courage to implement your own ‘Final Peace Agreement’.

Thank You.

Yours Faithfully

1. Nanton-Na Alhassan Sule 2. Mion-Lana A. A. Ziblim 3. Gushegu Gbon-Lana Abukari Yakubu 4. Tolon Gbon-Lana Abubakari Sulemana 5. Kworli Gbon-Lana Mahama Mahama 6. Gbungbaligu-Na Alhassan Bukari

7. Banvim-Lana Abdulai Mahama 8. Gbambu-Na Abdulai Shitobu 9. Mba Dugu Iddrisu Iddi 10. Gbagu-Lana Ziblim Abass 11. Bo-Na Alhassan Abukari 12. Jenkun-Lana Salifu Andani 13. Gbogin-Dana A. B. Haruna 14. Diyeli-Lana Abdulai Mahama 15. Zoosali-Lana Tia Sulemana 16. Pigu-Lana Abdulai Yakubu 17. Boting-Naa Bukali Abudu

Cc: H.E. THE PRESIDENT THE REPUBLIC OF GHANA OSU CASTLE, ACCRA

THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER ACCRA

THE MINISTER OF INTERIOR ACCRA

THE MINISTER MINISTRY OF CHIEFTAINCY AFFAIRS ACCRA

THE NORTHERN REGIONAL MINISTER TAMALE

THE UNDP REPRESENTATIVE ACCRA

THE ANDANI ROYAL FAMILY YENDI