Founder's Day or Founders' Day

by Nana Yaw Amoah-Yeboah

Chapter Three

  The Threshold of Nationalism, Politics of Opportunism, Tactical Stratagems and Pure Service

  The threshold of our nationalism did not begin during the 1940s as some assert. It accordingly began much earlier than that. The starting point of our agitation for self-government was rather transitional. It started to shape in the 1920s and took flight in the 1940s when the founding fathers of the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC) had matured. I, personally, hold the view that preparation begets leadership. Preparation is utmost. By 1920 there were 20 governmental schools, 188 "assisted" mission and 309 "unassisted" mission schools with a total enrollment of 43,000 pupils. By 1940, there were 91,000 children attending Gold Coast schools. By 1950, the 279,000 children attending some 3,000 schools in the Gold Coast. This meant that, in 1950, 43.6% of the school age children in the Gold Coast colony were attending school. Schooling and academics were the fulcrum point of our movement for self-governance. The founding fathers of Ghana, which later I would establish, knew leading an emerging country was no joke. They spent twenty or more years preparing to fight for our independence, more with brain than brawn. As Oquaye would put it, “the future leaders of the UGCC were maturing in the political vineyard.” The birth of the UGCC was not an epitome of “just a coincidence”. It was well calculated and conscious efforts were made to make it a political force to be reckoned with.

  In the 1890s, some members of the educated coastal elite organized themselves into the Aborigines' Rights Protection Society to protest a land bill that threatened traditional land tenure. This protest helped lay the foundation for political action that would ultimately lead to independence. In 1920, one of the African members of the Legislative Council, Joseph E. Casely-Hayford, convened the National Congress of British West Africa. The National Congress demanded a wide range of reforms and innovations for British West Africa. The National Congress sent a delegation to London to urge the Colonial Office to consider the principle of elected representation. Notwithstanding their call for elected representation as opposed to a system whereby the governor appointed council members, these nationalists insisted that they were loyal to the British Crown and that they merely sought an extension of British political and social practices to Africans. Notable leaders included Africanus Horton, the writer John Mensah Sarbah, and S.R.B. Attah-Ahoma.

  During the 1940s, African merchants were facing very unjust and unfair colonial treatments. One of them, George Alfred Grant, better known as Paa Grant was very ready to finance a movement that will seek the betterment of the African merchants and assure them of their commercial interests. Quite possibly, this movement was to also cater for the interest of the masses. It was not till 4th August, 1947 when a very vibrant political movement was born. It is quite laughable when some people tend to say that the UGCC was founded by the BIG SIX. This is very wrong. History is history, and should be devoid of all elements of falsehood. UGCC, being the first official political movement in the then Gold Coast was conceived by J. B. Danquah and jointly founded by William Ofori Atta, Edward Akufo-Addo, Ebenezer Ako Adjei, Obetsebi Lamptey, R. S Blay, R. A. Awoonor-Williams and others but not Kwame Nkrumah. These heroes are the progenitors of the Danquah-Busia-Dombo tradition except a few. Presently, there is a deliberate attempt to discredit these fine heroes and inject their effects with disdain and nothingness.

  On 10 December 1947, Kwame Nkrumah returned to the Gold Coast (modern-day Ghana) accepting Danquah's invitation to become the UGCC General Secretary. Ebenezer Ako-Adjei recommended inviting Nkrumah, whom he had met at Lincoln University. Nkrumah was offered a salary of £250, and Paa Grant paid the boat fare from Liverpool to Ghana. It should be noted categorically that, Nkrumah was the only one who received salary. Could Nkrumah not work for free if he believed so much in the struggle for independence? Maybe he could have; I leave this question for my readers to answer after reading this book. Before the 10th of December 1947 when Nkrumah was invited, the fight for independence had already began. During August 1947 to December 1947, there were strategic plans and a vision set by the leader of UGCC, J. B Danquah. This was the road map to independence. Again, it should be noted that, some cohorts of the NDC and CPP say the UGCC led by J. B. Danquah had the aim of “self-government within the shortest possible time” as against Nkrumah’s aim of “self-government now.” Even though later pages of this book will discuss this fully, I dare ask. If in the slimmest chance we were given independence right away as Nkrumah sought, what next? What people were going to be in the helm of affairs? What constitution was to help us govern? Did we have any development plan? I am forced to believe that this and many things informed the aim of the UGCC as to “self-government within the shortest time”. To them, preparation was utmost and governing a country was no experiment. It is no wonder that after 56 years of independence, we have little to show for it.

  Before I go on with the chronology of events and touch on the POLITICS OF OPPORTUNISM by Nkrumah, I want to talk about the title of this book. This, to me is the underlying reason why I wrote this book. NKRUMAH DID NOT, and NEVER COULD HAVE FOUNDED GHANA. Again, my political father, Oquaye could not have said it any better when he said “And you do not have to be a founder for your greatness to be recognized or given a holiday. Martin Luther King (USA) is an example. Nkrumah may be honoured with a holiday as first Prime Minister and first President. He also did a lot for Ghana regarding education, health, Akosombo Dam, Tema motorway etc. But we should have a real Founders’ Day to honour ALL the real founding fathers, including Nkrumah. The next NPP government must see to this. Some have said Nkrumah was the founder because of the declaration he made on the Old Polo Grounds - Ghana, your beloved country is free for ever. Some people do not know that this event was essentially a CPP rally and not the declaration of independence which was done by the Duchess of Kent on behalf of Queen Elizabeth II later in the National Assembly. So assuming that before that old polo grounds rally, Nkrumah was indisposed and Mr. K.A. Gbedemah had made that statement, would Gbedemah have become the founder of Ghana? This argument is, to say the least, unfortunate. I feel sad that our history is sometimes toyed with. No teacher should ever teach again that independence was proclaimed or declared by Nkrumah at old polo grounds. If that had been so, it would have amounted to the Unilateral Declaration of Independence which happened only in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) under Ian Smith.”

  The people of Ghana should adequately see this as a deliberate attempt to score cheap political points. The past should be regarded as a rock on which we can build as a nation.

  After 1940, when Paa Grant was ready to finance a movement which would address their concerns as a people, the masses were indeed suffocated with trifling and unjust actions. J. B. Danquah and the other knew that it was time we handled our own affairs – TIME WAS UP FOR THE WHITE MAN. As stated earlier Danquah and his people were not foolish; but for anything, they were learned, academics and scholars. They strategized carefully. Saltpond was the headquarters of the Joint Provincial Council of Chiefs and that is why the meeting took place there. It was a unity movement which incorporated all existing groups, e.g. Obetsebi Lamptey’s League of the Gold Coast, Danquah’s Youth Conference etc. Paa Grant was Chairman, Danquah was the Political Leader. Danquah made the Declaration of Self Emancipation. This became the cornerstone of the New Ghana. Something happened in Ghana akin to what took place in the USA. People should know that even though Americans declared independence on July 4, 1776, it was not until 1787 that the US Constitution came into force. Those who made that Declaration of Independence are all Founding Fathers in America. 

  This Famous Declaration was made in 1947 by Danquah (who the British came to declare as the Doyen of Gold Coast politicians) and not Nkrumah. Nkrumah was nowhere to be found then. He neither made any input nor contribute to this declaration. I therefore ask, why would we neglect all these paramount efforts by this great person and toss them in the bin? Danquah said,

  “We have come from all the corners of t
his country… (To decide) how we are to be governed, a new kind of freedom, a Gold Coast liberty. 

  We left our homes in Ghana and came down here to build for ourselves a new home: There is one thing we brought with us from ancient Ghana (870 years ago). We brought with us our ancient freedom. Today the safety of that freedom is threatened; has been continuously threatened for 100 years; since the Bond of 1844 and the time has come for a decision”. 

  It should be noted that, the present name of country Ghana was great element in his speech. Nkrumah had not even conceived the idea of the name Ghana; he was not even in the country. Nkrumah was not the Founder! Danquah conceived the idea of calling the independent Gold Coast, Ghana. This was formally adopted in Saltpond. It became known to every school child then that our nation would soon become independent; that our leaders were fighting for this; and the name of the new nation would be Ghana. And all this happened before Nkrumah arrived. And not even Nkrumah could have reversed this when independence arrived. 

  The name Ghana was in our history. I am not saying Danquah birthed the name Ghana but what he did was to link it to our interests and gave it a nationalistic ELUCIDATION. When Nkrumah said that our country Ghana was free forever, he was just whistling for the end of a match. The match had been played and the 90minutes was up.

  After the 1948 Riots it was J. B. Danquah who sent that eminent Cable to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, saying the colonial supervision had bowed. Specific demands were made by him as leader of the political movement. He asked for the recall of the Governor. Danquah called for an ad hoc government run by the UGCC. He proclaimed a Constituent Assembly to draw a new Constitution for self-government. This effort should also be noted. In his historic telegram, addressed to all the Chiefs and people of the Gold Coast, it was Danquah who declared “The Hour of Liberation Has struck”. Danquah wrote: “Inheritors of Ghana’s ancient Kingdom. My message as you see, is not moved by fear. Aggrey blotted fear from our dictionary. ‘Eagle fly for thou art not a chick’”. In 1948 Danquah boldly declared that the eagle would be an emblem of the new Ghana. Nkrumah was in the country then when Danquah did all these. Before Nkrumah arrived, our name had been chosen by the nationalist leaders at Saltpond. The Founding Fathers also chose the Eagle as our national emblem. The national colours- red, yellow and green- had been discussed at length and accepted. Later, Ms. Okoh was to design it into a befitting flag.  Nkrumah changed the flag in 1964. He substituted the national colours with what he desired all along - red, white and green - the CPP colours. This showed his dictatorial traits. This also brought loads of acrimony. The original flag was brought back only when Nkrumah was overthrown. This was done by the Busia government. An interesting thing which is worth mentioning is the anthem. Philip Gbeho explained the colours of our flag: “red for the blood of the HEROES (not hero) in the fight; green for the precious farms of our birth-right, and linked with these the shining golden band, that marks the richness of our fatherland.” What Nkrumah added to the flag was the Black Star which he borrowed from the Black Star Line of Marcus Garvey.

  When the nationalist leaders met in Saltpond in 1947, they further agreed that anytime independence was gained, the date should be 6th March. Why? Because the Bond of 1844 was dated 6th March 1844. So our release from the Bond should coincide with the date accordingly. Who did this for Ghana? Danquah and Co. Our fore bearers wanted independence and that is why they met in 1947. They discussed all those matters that concern a new nation and drew up a liberal Constitution which later became the 1969 Constitution in a revised form. 

  So then I ask, what did Nkrumah do to be known as the FOUNDER of GHANA? There is no doubt Nkrumah did his bit for Ghana but did nothing to merit the title of FOUNDER. Nkrumah is not the FOUNDER of GHANA but the progenitors of the Danquah-Busia-Dombo tradition are and we must accord them with the due recognition even though for some, this is distasteful in their mouths.

  Nkrumah, to me was a very intelligent man. He employed the intelligence game played on us by the British. He was visionary and a clear example of why I say autocracy is not always that bad; at least, he proved that to Ghanaians. He has been described by Lawyer Ayikoi Otoo as opportunistic. I very much agree with that. He used the POLITICS of OPPORTUNISM and POLITICAL STRATEGEMS to his advantage. He instituted what I will call AUTO-COLONIALISM. I will explain this, much further in my next chapter.

  As soon as Nkrumah broke away from the UGCC, he formed the Convention People’s Party (CPP) on June 12, 1949. Why did Nkrumah break away from the UGCC? This is my understanding. Since Nkrumah’s affiliation with the UGCC, he knew one thing was sure; self-governance was not far-fetched. He wanted to be the center of the action and UGCC was not giving him that platform. He therefore used the phrase self-governance now, as a gizmo to grab the attention of the masses. This was to make the UGCC seem as a political movement fighting for independence at a slower pace and he, Nkrumah was the man who could deliver independence to them. The name Convention People’s Party was, to me, no coincidence since it resonated the intelligence game he sought to play. What better way can he be the man of the people than resorting to lead them “realize their hopes”? He played on the intelligence of the masses to achieve his own parochial and selfish interest. My reasons for saying this are much founded.

  Presently, let me elucidate the MOTION OF DESTINY MYTH according to an article by Septimius Severusa in the Ghanaian Chronicle. In 1948, the Scottish solicitor, Aitken Watson, chair of the Commission set up by Atlee’s Labour Colonial Government was to investigate what led to the circumstances of the 28th February Ex-Servicemen’s March that resulted to the killings of Sergeant Adjetey, Cpl. Attipoe and Private Odartey Lamptey by the dishonorable British police, Imray, which sparked the historic riots of that and subsequent days, Danquah was probed; what the UGCC meant by “independence within the shortest possible time”, Danquah replied that their programme was a ten-year one. They believed that with the necessary preparations and relevant engagements independence could be achieved within 10 years. He was, as in so many other things, unerringly prophetic. 4th August 1947, when the UGCC was established, and 6th March 1957, when the nation gained its freedom, was a period of 10 years. Curiously, for all the dramatic proclamation of ‘Self Government Now!” with which Nkrumah launched the break-away Convention People’s Party in June 1949, the slogan did not in the end accelerate by one whit our attainment of independence. It transpired that finally there was little difference in the effect of the differing slogans, except the boost that the catchier slogan of “Self-Government Now!” gave to Nkrumah’s personal political fortune. Apropos, the Watson Commission recommended in its report that Ghana’s freedom should be possible within 10 years, accepting, as it were, the submission made by Danquah. It may be worth pointing out that one of Nkrumah’s European advisors during his time in the United Kingdom, Fenner Brockway (the Baron Brockway), an anti-colonial activist and Labour politician, who died in 1988, recalled that “Nkrumah was very disinclined to go” back to the Gold Coast on the invitation of the UGCC. Both George [Padmore] and I urged him to go and change the organization since it was the only organization in Ghana. I don’t think I had much influence, but George Padmore certainly did.” According to the autobiography of Nkrumah’s close pal and neighbour at Primrose Hill Gardens, Hampstead, London, Joe Appiah, the only other route for returning home being considered at that time by Nkrumah was the possibility of obtaining the editorship of the Ashanti Pioneer, “as a stepping stone to greater heights”. Nkrumah had also discussed a plan for restaurants and bookshops with his cousin back home, Ackah Watson.

  Another of the myths that should be exploded is that Danquah and the Opposition opposed the move for independence. THIS IS A BOLD LIE TO RIP THE PROGENITORS OF THE NPP OF THEIR HONOUR. In the 1953 Legislative Assembly, Kwame Nkrumah, in introducing a new Constitution, moved what was described as the “Motion of Destiny”. This motion called for the Assembly to authorize the CPP administration to: “Request t
he British Government to introduce legislation leading to Ghana’s Independence Act as soon as the necessary constitutional and administrative arrangements are made”. This is a fact and this statement made by Nkrumah should be noted. On that historical date, Danquah, Leader of the Opposition, moved an amendment to Nkrumah’s motion, calling instead for a “Declaration of Independence”. Danquah said: “Given the demand of the people for independence, the Legislative Assembly on its own should declare the country’s independence on 6th March 1954 and the British Government should be requested to extend recognition to the new state. Independence is a God-given right and not a gift of the British Parliament.” Someone who wanted self-governance now is now OPPOSED to independence. This is indeed shocking. There and then, I very much uphold that Danquah and the opposition were suspicious. Why did Nkrumah oppose independence at the time? What is that Nkrumah had not finished with his INTELLIGENCE GAME? Nkrumah rejected the amendment on the ground that the country would, by accepting the amendment, “forfeit our British goodwill.” The result was that Independence was achieved three years later in 1957 instead of 6th March 1954 as proposed by Danquah, which would have been 110 years after the Bond of March 6, 1844. The only notable concession to Danquah’s amendment was the Independence Day, 6th March. Yet, it is said today by men of presidential status that the UGCC Opposition at the time opposed the “Motion of Destiny.” On Monday, 29th January 2007, the then NDC Presidential Candidate, Prof. John Atta-Mills, endorsed this falsehood when, with no regard for the chronology of those historical events and the facts of those events, he stated: ”It is ironic that the NPP, being an offshoot of the Busia-Danquah [sic] tradition that opposed the ‘Motion of Destiny’ proposed by Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah in 1956 [sic] and which paved the way for independence, are today the political leaders of Ghana.” This is to show the lies, deceit and propaganda the cohorts of the NDC choose to do. The motion of destiny was not meant to give Ghana independence now but to give independence as soon as amongst other things, administrative arrangements are ready. If Nkrumah knew these arrangements were not ready and that independence was not feasible then, why did he break away from the UGCC? This underlines the title of this chapter as the THRESHOLD OF NATIONALISM which was began by John Mensah Sarbah and Co., POLITICS of OPPORTUNISM and POLITICAL STRATEGEMS as used by Nkrumah and the POLITICS of PURE SERVICE which aptly describes Danquah, Obetsebi Lamptey, Akufo-Addo, Ofori Atta and Co.

  I say that a date which should be the unequivocal acceptance of all Ghanaians as a seminal date in our national history other than 6th March, it should be 4th August. It was on that date in 1897 when John Mensah Sarbah, the first Ghanaian lawyer, Joseph Casely-Hayford, the renowned author, lawyer and Pan-Africanist, and others met in Cape Coast to establish the Aborigines Rights Protection Society (ARPS). This is the society waged a brilliant, successful campaign to keep control of our lands in the hands of their traditional custodians, the chiefs, defeating the Colonial Crown Lands Bill of 1897 that sought to repossess our lands to the British Sovereign in the same way as occurred in East and Southern Africa. Together with the mosquito, the ARPS spared us the fate that continues to bedevil the lives of our brethren in East and Southern Africa, where minority colonial settler communities control to the exclusion of the majority indigenous peoples the most arable lands. Again, it was on that same fateful day, exactly 50 years later, in 1947, that Ghanaian patriots met in Saltpond and founded the UGCC, launched the movement for national freedom and independence. The CPP, which eventually came out of the UGCC – indeed, Kwame Nkrumah was careful to maintain the link with the Convention by appropriating the word “Convention” to the name of the new party. It should be possible then for all to find their common ancestry in the events of 4th August. That would be a more consensual date to typify as FOUNDERS’ DAY. The unilateral attempt to force Nkrumah’s birthday as “Founder’s Day” will not, for the foreseeable future, garner national consensus. The resolution of such an issue requires national consensus. Yet, the NDC did this without any national discussion. Of course, they did it to satisfy their own egoistic and greedy thirst. 4th August is better for that purpose than 21st September. The latter can be more appropriately celebrated as “Kwame Nkrumah Memorial Day”, in remembrance of the contribution made to our nation’s progress by our first President. We should not allow such an issue to be a football for the legislative majority of the day, for what has been done by one Parliament can be undone by another. We need a consensus on the issue. I foresee the next NPP administration addressing this issue and setting the records straight.