Comedy of Errors: Nana Essilfie-Conduah writes on who to be credited as Founder of Ghana

Gimmicks are the lead tool in pragmatic politics—real politik.

But they have a fault line which usually cracks the ruses.

This nation has to grapple with the debris from the fall outs in recent attempts to split hairs over locating [i]who pioneered its independence; [ii] to credit as the “Founder”; and [iii] deserve(s) celebrated.

In fact the UGCC called the 4 August 1947 “CONVENTION DAY”, set up a foundation fund and bagged subscriptions totaling a little under eight hundred and fifty pounds sterling that day of inauguration by its founder Paa Grant who topped with two hundred and fifty pounds sterling. Dr Danquah’s was fifty.

Nkrumah was not in yet from London. I suppose it could be conjectured that Nkrumah might have borrowed “CONVENTION” adding “Peoples Party” when he separated—shrewd. 

The whole rushed job came out of unilateral decision by the incumbent government running to Saltpond for ceremonies to answer [i] with [ii] and [iii] in tow as implicit sequitur.

The bad error is that it is a national hot potato which the President had in one of his early addresses said should be resolved by a national consultative means.

The second equally serious mistake was making the pilgrimage openly partisan.

Its belated homage-payment became a cropper which limped into controversy in historical correctness.

This has digressed into an extended question about whether the Speaker of Parliament had not compromised his office.

Never in the history of this country was it known that the person who presided the legislature, despite his/her political identikit, openly speak taking a side.

It is a conventional “no-go”. The germane reason for the interdiction was to protect honour, save objectivity and ensure trust of the House as a whole and country at large.

Political quarrel before the Speaker gave his lecture centered on the accusation of bias against him by the Opposition [minority].

That has not been settled. It is certain his delivery’s content will be and indeed being read as exhibit supporting the charge.

I have in a prior analysis dumped his dates, presence and back-ups he offered to assert that Dr Kwame Nkrumah could not be credited as sole person in terms of i, ii and iii.

The good though coming from his and government joint faux pas is the plethora of corrections and narrations from recalls in the press subsequently.

There is one significant misstatement among the lot which I should point, once the writing and speaking renaissance shall strengthen the history, having straightened out to excise partisanship which has clogged the truth.

Here is the paragraph [”Reasons…UGCC failed” DG pg 39; 9 Aug. 2017]: “…Dr Danquah’s own contribution to anti-colonial struggle is not in dispute but that is not to be conflated with the UGCC.

The UGCC was his last substantive political project and it failed and ceased to exist after the elections. The rump reconstituted themselves into various opposition groups whose raison d’etre was to stop Dr Nkrumah from leading Ghana to independence.

And they thwarted every effort to deliver the promise of self-government they committed themselves to in August 1947.”

Corrections please: [a] the UGCC was not Dr Danquah’s “project” first or last. It was Paa Grant’s. Dr Danquah was invited to participate. [b] not all of the rump after Nkrumah had quit (12 June 1949) “reconstituted”. R.S. Blay with Paa who with Kobena Sakyi and F. Awoonor Williams had think-tanked the UGCC, opted out back to pursue their businesses—law and timber magnate respectively. So did Dr J.W.deGraft Johnson, the interim Secretary General.

Danquah, Obetsebi Lamptey, William Ofori Atta inclined towards groups such as Busia’s National Congress, S.G.Antor’s Togo Congress [ABLODE—intended to decouple Trans-Volta Togoland (a UN Trusteeship) from the Gold Coast] and another amorphous group which included N.A. Ollenu, until the advent of the second secessionist movement, the NLM [Ashanti] after the Northern peoples Party of Tolon Na Yakubu Tali and J.A.Braimah combined into the United Party [UP].

Ako Adjei later rejoined with Nkrumah, having lost the election contesting a CPP candidate [T. Hutton Mills] similarly as Ollenu beaten by Nkrumah both in Accra.

Edward Akufo-Addo stuck to his legal practice but involved in politics with Dr. Danquah and definitely the others, as long as they shared the same political ideals. [c] The UGCC did not “fail” not delivering on their “promise”.

It scattered or had to fold post-Nkrumah. This was the design for their detention as the “BIG SIX” by the British colonial government through its Governor Gerald Creasy.

The salvaging for the country was that the job to carry the pledge to its logical conclusion was bravely picked up by Nkrumah heading his CPP led the country.

He succeeded overwhelmingly triumphant over undignified-to-relate series of aborted and or defied domestic raucous Opposition [whose leader was Dr. Danquah] in collaboration with Western international, callous vilification, life-threats and cantankerousness.

One of the greatest imperatives in writing history is to follow and interrogate facts wherever they led.

In the course of the Speaker’s errors he surprised or stung core CPPists with remarks that they would do themselves a world of political survival good, if they became independent of the NDC, a jibe which the NDC rejected.

The inference is that the CPP would get itself in political reckoning only if they cut off NDC connection which he claimed as the party’s current undoing into being presently embattled.

The Speaker got this also very wrong and almost sounded like trekking into political mischief-making. But he is not the type, as I know him. So what was the point in the comedy?

Reading his script, this reference to the CPP seems like a last throw in—a time filler kind of. I would have developed it on its own as separate theme because it is relevant, being a long simmering disquiet.

Briefly for now, the CPP in disarray today started immediately after overthrown by the putsch for which the evidence attaches the UP, a toothless to moribund party at the time 1966.

After the coup had succeeded, one the lead-aims of the leadership was total destruction of the CPP. Some leading stalwarts of the party publicly disowned Nkrumah; others turned mavericks.

The few faithful were held together by Alhaji Imoru Egala, himself NLC decree-disqualified both as a person and the party too.

Youthful impatience kidnapped the corps d’esprit and having destooled dialogue to re-strategize for re-positioning splintered, each claiming to be more “Nkrumahist” and heir apparent than the other.

It went to High Court trial which ended in the victory of one group named PNP and won the 1979 ballot for the 3rd Republic at the expense of the PP [inheritor of the UP] which had also broken up into PFP and UNC.

The second coming of Rawlings Dec.1981 multiplied the walk-away into squabbling smaller Nkrumahist parties. The Rawlings interregnum unified the PFP-UNC into NPP.

In the scrum Ekow Arkaah’s CPP brand co-operated and then sucked with the newly founded NDC to win for the return of country to constitutional rule, the 4th Republic.

Instead of re-assembling, the rest stayed in the separate clothing competing often exchanging disgraceful mud slings as if continuing to chant the original Nkrumah CPP clarion:”the struggle continues unabated.” It is clear the NDC is not the reason primarily. I think the real culprit for the state of the CPP is ego clothed in playing possum breathing inordinate ambitions. If these would be ditched, there will be the new CPP like Tony Blair achieved with nw Labour in Britain.

The saddest footnote is that there is no ready-made or even potential national leadership material among the pack today, as I see it cursorily and in depth—quite painful to say; and that would seem true for the foreseeable, except on the other hand the “you –never-can tell” in politics particularly and or life in general dawned to occur.

The surprise could be an electoral advantage. However, it is reasonable to doubt presently; because the CPP per se, is in apparent or reported constant disagreement within and squeamish with other Nkrumahists who are also squabbling. For a historical fact affirmation, these are the residual consequences of there not being a party structure and especially the vacuum of an established leadership succession mechanism.

The fault was that matter was a taboo in party discourse. Incidentally, the CPP is not alone saddled with this culture of silence-made untouchable—a haunting albatross. Our experience in this country has not removed that contentious issue yet from all the political parties here today.

©Prof.nana essilfie-conduah.