Property rights and conflict in Gomoa Nsuaem, Ghana’s central region

Abstract

This paper examines how contestation over property rights in Gomoa Nsuaem created conflict between the Twidan and Agona royal lineages in the community. The article employs archival, secondary and oral sources to critically clarify that Odikro Otenyi Kwaku of Gomoa Nsuaem reinvented tradition to satisfy his own parochial interests by selling off large tracts of Gomoa Nsuaem land popularly known as Otopaako Lands belonging to the Twidan Clan to Mankrado Kwaku Annor of the Agona clan as a result of his profligate and lecherous lifestyle. Hence the indigenous concept of land ownership beneficial for the entire clan was lost to the Twidan people.

Keywords:

• Property rights
• land dispute
• land ownership
• reinvention of tradition
• Central Region, Ghana

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

According to Ghana’s traditional property laws, all lands that were not already acquired for public use or that were not privately owned were communally owned and held in trust by the chief on behalf of the local populace if it was “common” land or by the head of the extended family on behalf of the members if it was family land. It was believed that the living held these properties in trust for the deceased and passed on the property rights to the unborn. As a result, nobody could consent to the sale of these properties without their consent. Odikro Otenyi Kwaku of Gomoa Nsauem re-invented tradition by selling large tracts of Gomoa Nsuaem land known as Otopaako Lands belonging to the Twidan Clan to Mankrado Kwaku Annor of the Agona Clan. Hence the indigenous concept of land ownership beneficial for the entire clan was lost to the Twidan people.

1. 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” (Bates, 1981). The enforcement of such rights assures that they alone, and no one else in whatever capacity, are the beneficiaries of any given property.

Property rights, in the words of Gibbs and Bromley, are the “bundle of rights” that one person has in regard to other people (Gibbs, and Bromely 1989). In addition, Vogelgesang described the phenomenon as the control over a resource (such as land) that has to be seen as a web of rights between people rather than just the ownership of something (Volgelgesang 1988). Property rights are a collection of privileges that define an owner’s rights, privileges, and restrictions relating to the use of a resource. In actuality, they are privileges that people may exercise over the products and services they own, including the labour they do. Property rights may belong to a person, as in market economies, or to the state, as in socialist economies that are centrally controlled. There are also common property rights, which provide people claims on shared resources as recognised group members. However, property rights are crucial in every situation because they control how resources are distributed in a setting when user interests are in conflict. Redistribution of wealth and power accompany the alteration of property rights. As a result, it is a naturally conflictual (or antagonistic) process. Individuals and social groupings will probably organise to either defend the current, benevolent status quo or establish a new distributional meaning of property rights (and so claim a privileged position in society). These individuals could actively influence state actors in order to seize the state’s coercive authority and impose their desired system. They could also try to establish a different authority by privately or locally enforcing property rights. In either scenario, the activities of the subjects play a critical role in determining which system is implemented and how secure it is (Griffiths 1986). The result is not solely determined by the state.

1.1. Transformation of property rights

The establishment of colonial control in Ghana was accompanied by a sharp increase in land values. The colonial state’s officials declared that they would respect customary land tenure and gave the colony’s several traditional states’ chiefs enforcement authority. These directives created the context under which indigenous actors engaged in conflict to redefine property rights and appropriate those precious resources. But not all areas of the Gold Coast were in this predicament. This article demonstrates how Odikro Otenyi Kwaku of Gomoa Nsuaem in Ghana’s Central Region revised the system of property rights to the general detriment of the Twidan clan.

1.2. Methodology

The study adopted a qualitative research approach and the snowball sampling technique and relied on primary, secondary and oral sources. I used primary documents from two offices of Public Records and Archives Administration Department (PRAAD) in Accra and Cape Coast. The data from secondary sources was retrieved from libraries, journals, both online and hard copies and unpublished manuscripts. Elderly men and women whose ages range from 60 upwards were randomly interviewed at Gomoa Nsuaem to corroborate archival evidence. The data collected was presented and analysed using the interpretative and narrative approach. All these were framed in the interpretative research philosophy.

1.3. Map of Gomoa Nsuaem

Gomoa Nsuaim (Nsuaem) in the Gomoa Akyempim or Assin traditional area is a small town in Ghana’s Central region, located in the Gomoa East District. It shares borders with Ayensuadze in the north, Panfokrom and Tekyiam in the south, Abaasa in the West and Dominase and Buduata in the east. Agriculture is the people’s main source of income. The land in Nsuaem is suitable for crops like maize, cassava, plantain, sugarcane, oil palm and vegetables like tomatoes and garden eggs (See Figure 1).

Figure 1. Map of Study Area..

Source: GIS Lab Department of Geography ABU Zaria, Using ArcGIS 10.3 Software.

Oral histories from the Fante and Gomoa peoples confirmed that their forefathers lived in Takyiman, in what is now Ghana’s Bono East Region, before migrating to their current settlements in the Central Region. Their migration to the Central region led to the saying in Takyiman that “Bono no fa ate,” meaning part of the people of the Bono Kingdom had broken away.¹ This was how the word “Fante” came into being. The Fante can be classified into two groups: Borbor Fante and non-Borbor Fante. The Borbor Fante claimed to be an intruding group who came to Fanteland from Takyiman (Anquandah, 2013; Furley, 1922; Fynn, 1987).

In the Pre-colonial era, the city of Takyiman was balkanized into a number of suburbs or sections that were active in specialised activity while the Fante and the Gomoa were in residence. The Bono quarter was the kingdom’s nerve center and the seat of the Bono king. The principal mosque was located in the Muslim quarters. The goldsmithing, copper, and iron-smelting businesses were centered in the artisan quarters known as Dwomo or Dwimfo. This was the home of the Fante and Gomoa commanders. The Fante traveled in two groups towards the shore from here. Obunumankoma, Odapagyan, and Oson headed the first group. Obaatan Gomoa and Asankoma, two warlords, led the second group. The result of this migration, according to Dolphyne and Anquandah, is shown in the strong relationship between Fante and Takyiman Bono, whose vocabulary is connected to their political and social systems.²That is to say that, the Fante and the Bono people have the same tone when they are speaking. The date of the Fante migration to the coast is shrouded in obscurity but Portuguese records revealed that a Fante state was in existence at Mankessim by the end of the 15^th Century (William, 1915).

1.4. Gomoa migration to the coast

According to Stephen Arthur, the Borbor Fante groups notified the Gomoa as they were leaving Takyiman, but Gomoa’s priest, Agya Ahor, was consulting the oracle, so they had to wait until the ceremony was completed. The ceremony took Agya Ahor three months to complete, and the Borbor Fante had already left under the command of Kurentsir, their chief priest. Leaving the Gomoa behind, Kurentsir, the chief priest of the Borbor Fante, left a message for Agya Ahor, telling him to keep an eye out for Pusuban, (Authur, 2019) who would reveal the route they had travelled and allow them to join up wherever they found a suitable location to live. “Pusuban” can now be found in every Borbor Fante, Eyan, and Gomoa village. It enabled the kinsmen to track down their relatives throughout the Fante and Gomoa movement to various locations in search of a suitable settlement.

As a result, the Gomoa people left later under the leadership of their priest, Agya Ahor. They traveled in the footsteps of their forefathers and discovered a village in Mankessim, where they reunited and settled among their relatives, the Borbor Fante. After many years in Mankessim, the latter immigrants were forced to relocate eastwards due to population growth and other circumstances. This eastward journey brought the Gomoa people to their new village behind River Kwesi-Nakwa, which they named Gomoa-man-mu (Gomoa’s settlement). After a period of time at Gomoa-man-mu, each of Obaatan Gomoa’s offspring dispersed to form other villages based on maternal groups. When the Gomoa arrived in their current location, they named one of their towns Gomoa Takyiman, most likely in honor of their time spent in Takyiman. This could be taken as proof of their ties to the Bono Kingdom of Takyiman. According to Dickson, the Gomoa migrated to their current settlement after Asante defeated Takyiman in 1723, Dickson (1969). This date however cannot be corroborated since Portuguese records indicate the presence of the Fante and Gomoa on the coast as early as in the 15^th century (Stride and Ifeka, 1971).

2. The history and origin of Gomoa Nsuaem

After a period of time at Gomoa-man-mu, and as a result of overcrowding and inadequate land for farming, some of the Gomoa desired new settlements. Oral tradition has it that, Akodeℇ Akwatsia (a short old man) also known as Nana Kwaku Akwatsia, which was later corrupted as Kwaakwatsia from Twidan (Bretuo) clan, a herbalist and hunter from Kyiren, continued their migration in search of a river body, fertile land and a forest to fish, farm and hunt respectively. He wandered to find a suitable place for settlement and eventually built a community named after him as Kwaakwatsia in 1676.³ Akodeℇ Akwatsia chose this location because of its good soil and proximity to the Ayensu River. As the tradition goes, Akodeℇ Akwatsia constructed a small boat for himself which he used to fish on the river. Where he used to fish is now called Akodeℇ Akwatsia Anomye (Anomoi).⁴ It is also said that people travelled from far and wide to consult Akodeℇ Akwatsia for healing since he was a herbalist.⁵ Tomato producers were among the first settlers in Kwaakwatsia because of the Ayensu river.⁶ Due to his skills as a warrior and hunter, Nana Akwatsia fought in numerous wars. The Gomoa and Agona Wars were notable among them. After every battle, Akwatia and his soldiers were required to clean their weapons before returning home. The “Akomfoa sword” was a notable example of these weapons. The Akomfoa sword was used to behead war captives. After every war before Nana Akwatsia reached Kwaakwatsia, he had to wash the Akomfoa sword and other implements in a small lake called “Akomfoa”. Originally, the colour of the lake was red.⁷ Later, the town became a transit stop or resting place for slaves seized in Salaga, Gold Coast’s Northern Region and the Eastern Region on their way to Fort Winneba. Akodeℇ Akwatsia provided medical care to the slaves who were hurt. Following that, the settlement (Atweonye Mu) became a trading hub where products were swapped for either goods or slaves.⁸ This carried on for a while until the Kwaakwatsia people chose to evacuate because their hamlet was often muddy and flooded due to closeness of the Ayensu River. Before their relocation, Kwaata Yamoah went to reside with his uncle, Akodeℇ Akwatsia.⁹

They relocated to Nsua-yem, which was ultimately corrupted to Nsuaem, a location where the people of Kwaakwatsia used to hunt game for grasscutter, antelope, rats etc. Due to his age, Akodeℇ Akwatsia installed his nephew Kwata Yamoah as Odikro of Nsuaem and later built a shrine (pusuban) in the town’s center where sacrifices to their gods and ancestors were made.¹⁰ It is of interest to note that at Kwaakwatsia, the people did not have Pusuban. It was when they relocated to Nsuaem that Akodeℇ Akwatsia provided them with Pusuban.¹¹

2.1. Origins of Akan land tenure system

Land was frequently acquired by conquest in ancient Akanland of Ghana, and this process typically took two forms. First, a kinship group would come into a region and use force to evict the indigenous residents and occupy the area. Second, a wide territory might be tamed by warfare and placed under the control of a certain political power. The Akan, in general, and the Gomoa Nsuaem, in particular, adopted both of these territorial expansion strategies, which greatly influenced their land tenure system.

2.2. Traditional schemes of interest in land in Ghana

From the sparse accounts provided by social anthropologists, historians, and casual travellers, prominent among whom were men like Ibn Battuta, the great Islamic scholar who visited the western Sudan in the thirteenth century, and Leo Africanus, Rodney came to the conclusion that before the fifteenth century, the primary principle of social relations in Africa was that of the family and kinship associated with communalism, that each member of an African society had his or her own family which determined his social standing (Nkrumah 1970). Matrilineal relationships were valued more in some communities than patrilineal ones, and vice versa (Nkrumah 1970). Due to the fact that “the land [the major means of production] was owned by groups such as the family or clan, the head of which was responsible for the land on behalf of all kin, including fore-parents and those yet-to-be born,” Rodney identifies these social relations as being crucial to the daily existence of a number of African societies (Nkrumah 1970). At that point in their history, African cultures organised labour socially around kinship. As Rodney correctly notes, this may be compared with the capitalist system of organising labour, where money buys labour, and with feudalism, where the serf performs labour in exchange for access to a piece of the landlord’s property (Nkrumah 1970).

The majority of land tenure in these communities is still traditional, reflecting community characteristics, despite centuries of indirect and formal imposition of the Anglo-American common law on African society. Thus, many pre-colonial and contemporary land tenure systems are embedded in tenurial agreements that link land tenure to the social, economic, and political organisation of society. We should also take note of Allott’s observations on Ashanti’s pyramidal systems of political organisation and land tenure. He writes:

The Ashanti system for the control and enjoyment of interests in land was fundamental to the whole structure of government, so much so that, if one removed the land rights of the chiefs, the basis on which they held their office and exercised their jurisdiction over their subjects would be destroyed. This network of land rights supporting the political structure extended upwards and downwards (Allot, 1968).

Land in Akanland is not considered “private property” and is instead subject to exclusive ownership rights that are owned by either natural or legal persons. Instead, many distinct types of social agents have overlapping rights on the majority of land. Generally speaking, a person can obtain the right to use property by coming to an agreement with the “owners.” As we have seen, many of these agreements are struck between family members. Individual family members may ask the family head (or elders), a parent or sibling from his or her own suballocation, or another family member to allot one or more parcels of land on their behalf. Families have acquired long-term rights to property in a number of ways (see below). Such distributions of land rights among family members are referred to as “gifts” (as opposed to bequests). Receivers of such gifts are expected to repay the favour with a tiny token of appreciation known as aseda, or “thanks,” which is typically a small gift of alcohol or cash. The payment of aseda, which is made in their presence, confirms the gift, and their memories may be used at any moment to protect the recipient’s rights against competing claims. Family elders or, in the absence of them, elders of the stool may settle disputes over the limits of family members’ plots.

The Akan and Gomoa in particular have a matrilineal system of counting descent, and historically, inheritance followed lines of descent. When someone passed away, the family gathered to choose an heir. The deceased person’s property was passed down to the heir, which may include “family property” that the decedent had inherited during his or her lifetime as well as self-acquired goods that had not yet been donated. Self-acquired property is now frequently bequeathed through written wills in the twenty-first century, although such bequests may be contested by the matrilineal family once a person passes away.¹² The argument that the property mentioned in the will was not independently obtained but rather belonged to the family is a frequent basis for such challenges. An heir is not supposed to treat inherited property as his or her personal possession but to act as a trustee, managing the property for the benefit of the family as a whole. If the claim is upheld, it follows that the deceased person was not entitled to give or bequeath the properties in question.

Many of the property systems in black Africa do share these distinguishing characteristics. Land rights are often enjoyed through voluntary occupancy and use of land without the need for a formal grant or allotment based on a hierarchy of political administration or administrative authority in cultures that lack unifying frameworks or central authorities. Chiefs may exercise jurisdictional powers over territory within their spheres of influence in various other civilizations. However, these chiefs could not even have any administrative authority over areas (White 1970).

Despite these minor variations, it is still possible to pinpoint a universal standard that governs and specifies the ownership rights, the beneficial use of those rights, and the nature of those rights or interests under black African traditional schemes of interest in land. The right of each individual member of a social group, such as the polity, the clan, the tribe, or the family, to profitably use property as a member of the group or community serves as an illustration of such a universal rule or principle.¹³ Therefore, a basic concept that can be drawn from the numerous studies of land tenure regimes is that the enjoyment of land rights is community-based and free of status. Regardless of whether the system of land administration and property rights is based on hierarchical structures or only on group membership, this is undeniably true. This conclusion appears inevitable because claims of inherent rights to profit from the land ultimately depend on membership in one of the social groupings indicated.

In Ghana, issues of land tenure and governance are heavily influenced by religion. Most societies viewed the land as a shared resource, an ancestor’s legacy, and something no one person should be able to claim exclusive ownership over. For this reason, it was assumed that the ancestors would forbid any total alienation of the property. Thus, the yet-to-be-born generations would be deprived of it. It was believed that this would have the result of cutting the connection between the living and the deceased, as well as future generations. Therefore, any disposition that would result in the community losing entire ownership of the property must be considered to be wholly in the interest of the community as a whole. The threat of the ancestors’ wrath being inflicted on “offenders” helped to ensure compliance with these regulations, which expressed such egalitarian notions underpinning the allocation of community resources (Asante, 1975; Agbosu, 2000; Berry, 1997; Kludze, 1973);. It reflects, at the level of the superstructure of the community subsistence mode of production, how these theological concepts have been concretized in the legal postulates of traditional systems. These concepts are both formal and abstract interpretations of common property relations. The communal ownership of the land, in which that unity found both legal and emotional embodiment, culminated the unity of interest between individual members of a community in whom the allodial title was vested.

This structure ran afoul of the emerging, dominant capitalist sector, which was built on wage labour exploitation, private property ownership, and capitalist laissez-faire maximisation of profit and competitiveness. The later system’s principles were based on capitalist property relations, which clashed with the egalitarian traditional ones. The most significant areas in which these conflicts become visible are the transfers of land interests. This is because these conflicts represent the concepts of the two opposing systems of production, with the prevailing capitalist ideas dominating the traditional ones. These need to be scrutinised critically.

2.3. Citizen’s right to land

The Gomoa notion of land, its worth, and its tenure would be discussed here in conjunction with some of the other Akan tribes of the Gold Coast.

“Kinship, reverence for ancestors, and belief in the spiritual power of the earth” (Busia 1951) all coalesced in traditional Akan states to give the land a significant religious character. Asaase Yaa, which Rattray interpreted as “Thursday Earth Goddess,” (Rattray, 1969) was the name given to the earth by the majority of Akans. She is referred to as “Asaase Efua,” or Friday Earth Goddess, by the other Akan subgroup, the Fante (Johnson, 1955). Among the Akan, it was widely accepted that the Earth could be very beneficial economically and “harmful if neglected.” (Busia 1951). As a result, the Akans often saw the earth as a feminine power associated with reproduction. Although the land was not revered as such, it was necessary to execute certain traditional ceremonies to seek the protection and blessings of the ancestors because of the widespread belief that economic benefits from it might be quickly destroyed by supernatural powers. Because of this, the farmer had to make a sacrifice to show the Earth how thankful he was for a good harvest (Busia 1951).

The fact that the land belonged to the dead, who, in their divine wisdom, had left it to the living without severing their stake in it, led the Akans to regard it as sacrosanct. As a result, they were always on guard to guarantee its equitable distribution and appropriate usage. Consequently, the land acted as a bridge between the living and the dead. The stools and the leaders who sat on them served as representations of these ancestors. Because of this, the common Akan proverb “The land belonged to the chief” also means “The land belongs to the ancestors.” (Manoukian 1964). Thus, the common Akan proverb “all power rested in the land” or “land is the essence of all power.” (Rattray 1969).

Land’s economic value was closely tied to its religious significance. The rules controlling land tenure were often what controlled the structure of social influence, political power, and wealth and income distribution in ancient Akan civilizations (Biebuyck, 1968). Since they were the main recipients of the money generated by the lands under their control, the aristocracy may be classified as a bourgeoisie class in such cultures. A grievous decline in both political and economic power or influence resulted from the primarily positions’ hierarchical structure, which made sure that the riches so created ended up with those at the top receiving the most portion and trickling down to those at the lowest rung. So, land was a sign of wealth, and losing even a small piece of chiefdom’s land meant losing both political and economic power. When rulers lost territories, it hurt their reputation, but when they gained new ones, it made them more important and powerful.

3. The reinvention of tradition: the dispute between Agona clan and Twidan clan at Gomoa Nsuaem

One aspect of Gomoa’s prehistoric land tenure system that was put to the ultimate test as a result of the Otopaako land dispute was her social organisation. In Gomoa Nsuaem, there exists a long-standing land dispute between the Agona clan and the odikros of the town, the Twidan (Bretuo) clan. According to oral tradition, the genesis of this dispute can be traced to the reign of Odikro Otenyi Kwaku, a chief from the ruling clan of Twidan, who was known for his profligacy and lecherous lifestyle. At a point, drowning in debt and desperate for a solution, he confided in a priestess, Okomfo Yamawa, who was also one of his creditors, that he was in grave danger of incurring the ultimate penalty for bringing shame to the stool, hanging or banishment. The priestess, however, saw in the despairing chief’s dire situation an advantage to be taken. She informed her lover, Kwaku Annor, an Agona clansman from Kwaakwatsia Nsuaem, of Otenyi Kwaku’s predicament and gave him the idea of buying as much land as he could from the chief, who was likely to sell off large tracts of land to settle his numerous debts. An approach was made and Otenyi Kwaku sold the Otopaako land to Kwaku Annor of the Agona clan for £64.16sh in 1835¹⁴ (worth about £8685 today).¹⁵ Consequently, the Agona clan came to own much more land than the Twidan clan, which greatly reduced the local power and influence of the ruling clan. However, Twidan oral history differs greatly on the beginnings of this conflict. They trace the conflict’s history all the way back to when the town was founded. According to them, one of their forefathers (Akodeℇ Akwatsia) was the first to settle on the land. He established a plantation on which he and his family lived and farmed. Years after his death, his kin from Kyiren, the ancestral home of the Twidan of Nsauem, continued to visit the area. This habit continued even after they had settled in Nsuaem, but after a while, the visits mysteriously stopped, and no guests from Kyiren were received for many years. During this period of reprieve, the settlement flourished, and many other groups, notably the Agona and the Asona clans, settled there. Naturally, this ethnic diversity resulted in a small but sophisticated municipal government led by descendants of the first settlers, ensuring political representation for all clans living on the territory. According to the Twidan elders, one day a small group from Kyiren appeared in the area with several sheep and other sacrificial items to perform rituals on the land. The towns people refused to allow the sacrifice and drove the party away, resulting in tensions between the bigger Twidan clan at Kyiren and the smaller group at Nsuaem, as well as the rest of the town. The Kyiren people saw the blocking of the ceremony as an act of arrogance and resolved to punish Nsuaem by selling the town land and enslaving the residents. When the head of the Agona, who was also the Asafohene (chief of the army) of Nsuaem, learned of the scheme, he chose to find a diplomatic solution in his capacity as the town’s protector, because any armed clash would inevitability lead to Nsuaem’s defeat. As a result, he proposed to pacify the Kyiren people with a monetary gift. For that purpose, he obtained a loan from the chief of Asamankesse and used two of his nieces as collateral. With the money and other gifts in hand, he was able to pacify the Kyiren people and reach an agreement to stop using Nsuaem as a sacrificial site. To formalize the agreement, the Kyiren people sent a delegation to Nsuaem and permitted them to install a chief, which they had been unable to do for some time due to the town’s uncertain future.

When the dust had settled and the celebratory songs had died down, the Asamankesse loan obtained by the Asafohene of Nsuaem to finance the peace-making process remained. He called a conference of the chiefs and elders to inform them of his incapacity to pay the debt and to seek their assistance in settling it because the nieces he used as collateral for the loan had now become servants in Asamankesse palace. In the meeting, he proposed that because the loan was used to secure the property on which they all lived, the debt be shared equally among all the clans in Nsuaem so that each group would have equal rights to the land. However, one of the Twidan’s sons from the Agona clan flatly rejected the idea, boldly telling the Asafohene to keep the loan and the property. The Asafohene, enraged by this response and the lack of backing from the other chiefs, seized the Otopaako lands for himself and his family. The Twidan attribute this to the Agona’s inability to present documentation of the land’s sale. The Twidan elders accept that their forefathers erred in not supporting the Asafohene at that gathering, but they deny that the land was lost through a transaction. They still insist that the only land which rightfully belongs to the Agona is the Adumadadum land and not the all Otopaako lands.¹⁶

Historical records indicate that the Twidan clan, since during the reign of Odikro Kofi Ladi (Larbi?), has tried to reclaim the land through a series of arbitrations and civil lawsuits SCT./8/51 (1936). Odikro Kofi Ladi was the Chief of Kyiren (Chinni). However, due to the feudalistic system of the Gomoa states, Kwaakwatsia was under the jurisdiction of his stool and the elders and chiefs of Kwaakwatsia were among his councilors. In describing the Fante and Gomoa viewpoint on the issue of allodial land ownership, DeGraft Johnson drew attention to the fact that Family Stool Lands were the most prevalent phenomena in Fante and Gomoa because:

The migration of the Fantis and their allies was made by individual family groups and not for instance like the Akyems and Assins who came to the coast in the 18th and 19th centuries as a people under their own chief and with chief stool,“ … In Ashanti and the areas controlled by them, land became vested in the stool and everyone thus held in “fief” from the stool,… In the Colony. such a whole sale concentration of ownership in the stool has never been attained and land has been held under certain distinct characters. It is either stool land, such as obtains in Ashanti, or stool family land, or family land, or individually owned land or Asafo land (Johnson, 1955).

This means that certain stools in Fanteland do not own any land. This was confirmed by John Mensah Sarbah:

In the Fante system allegiance is personal, but in the Ashanti it is personal and territorial. The head ruler is not necessarily the owner of any land in his jurisdiction eg Ohene Tchibu of Assin Yankumasi owns no land and is a tenant of Abesibro, his captain (Sarbah 1968).

However, Mensah-Sarbah once again paints a clear picture of who had allodial ownership of property and the connection that existed between the Omanhene and his subordinate chiefs in instances when stool lands existed in Fanteland:

In ancient times the Omanhene held the whole unoccupied land in his territory as trustee for the people, and as they increased so this public land was brought under cultivation. The chiefs of the different towns were actually placed in charge of the occupied land in the districts or were considered as caretakers for the Omanhene. When a tribe was conquered it became subject of the conqueror’s stool, these people continued to hold and enjoy the lands under cultivation, but unused forests and unoccupied land as public property was attached to the stool of the Omanhene (Sarbah, 1968).

Consequently, some Fante Amanhin did not possess land, while others did as a result of conquests. These lands had sub-stools connected to them, whose residents served as trustees and custodians on behalf of the Amanhin.

The political structure also meant that the sub chiefs and elders who served Odikro Kofi Ladi as his fiduciaries, held the stool lands in Kwaakwatsia in trust for the Kyiren (Chinni) stool. As John Mensah Sarbah explains the complexities of land tenure:

… each subordinate chief or sub-stool has attached to it large portions of land, apparently carved out of the original territory originally belonging to the paramount stool. Similarly families have large tracts of land carved out of the subordinate stool and … any unoccupied land within the recognised boundaries of the subordinate stool land or family land … belong to the subordinate stool … but any unoccupied land not being part of the land of subordinate stool or family would be attached to the paramount stool (Sarbah 1968).

Four years into Kofi Ladi’s reign, he was informed that three years prior to his ascension, one of the subordinate chiefs of Kwaakwatsia, Kobina Anyan, from the Agona clan, had sold a parcel of the Otopaako lands to Kudjo Kwaw from Ojuan. Kofi Ladi claimed this was a trespass on his stool land.

As punishment, he revoked all Kobina Anyan’s rights to hold the land, fined him £13.0.6 and subsequently destooled him SCT. 2/4/24 (1896). It could be said that beneath this heavy handed approach was a desire to reclaim the lands and power that were lost to the Agona clan by the Twidan in the time of Otenyi Kwaku. This triggered a chain of events that resulted in Kobina Anyan trying to get justice in a higher court.

The case was first heard in the court of King Ghartey IV of Winneba in 1894, where the king ruled in favour of the Agona SCT./8/51 (1896). Kobina Anyan also forwarded his plea to the paramount power of Gomoa Assin or Akyempim, King Kojo Inkoom, the very next year (1895), where once again the judgement went against the Twidan SCT./8/51 (1896). The King’s court found that Odikro Kofi Ladi did not consult the Kyiren (Chinni) chiefs but only those of Kwaakwatsia before demoting Kobina Anyan, and as such, did not follow due process in the demotion. He therefore ordered that the Otopaako lands, together with Kobina Anyan’s position, be restored to him. Kofi Ladi was ordered to pay all the litigation expenses of the plaintiff in addition to damages of 1 sheep and 6 flasks of rum. £2.10 was also awarded to Korbiba Anyan as relief (SCT./8/51 1896).

Ayensuadze oral traditions also relay that the Twidan of Nsuaem once approached Abusuapanyin Oku Sam of Ayensuadze to be their witness in the dispute with the Agona. However, Oku Sam refused on the grounds that the Agona had owned the Otopaako lands since before he was born. In fact, the three clans have their border marking pillars close to each other and as such, each of the clans knows the exact extent of the others’ lands. The Abusuapanyin rebuked the Twidan delegation severely and sent them away.¹⁷

After two consecutive losses in traditional courts, the case was escalated to the Gold Coast Supreme Court in 1896 by Odikro Kofi Ladi, where it was presided over by Acting Chief Justice of the Gold Coast, Francis Smith. The plaintiff sued for £100 damages for trespass by Kobina Anyan, for pledging and selling a parcel of the Otopaako lands, which he claimed was part of his stool lands. Kofi Ladi also motioned for an injunction to restrain the defendant from further trespass. Kofi Ladi’s whole case was built upon the erroneous principle that he, as Chief of the Stool of Chinni (Kyiren) and Kwaakwatsia, owned every land in the two towns, and he alone had the right to sell or pledge any part of it. In his testimony, Kofi Ladi told the court that he consulted with his chiefs before taking any action, and they had assured him he had power over the land. According to him, he had also redeemed the land by paying back £13 to Kudjo Kwaw, who was alleged to have bought the land from Kobina Anyan. He also admitted to deposing Kobina Anyan over the dispute and told the court he had not restored the said lands or position to Kobina Anyan despite King Inkoom’s judgement which required him to do so (SCT./8/51 1896).

One of the witnesses for the plaintiff, Kwamina Ashaku, testified that the said land is indeed attached to the Kwaakwatsia stool and that Kobina Anyan’s ancestors were prisoners of war captured by Kofi Ladi’s ancestors during the Akwamu war and therefore could not own the said land SCT./8/51 (1896). The Odikro and his witnesses also accused Kobina Anyan of having a history of selling Chinni (Kyiren)stool lands called Awoku SCT./8/51 (1896).

When Kobina Anyan appeared before the court, he refuted these assertions with claims that the land was bequeathed to him by his ancestors and was attached to his own stool. He testified that his mother was the niece of Kwaku Annor, the person who originally procured the land from Otenyi Kwaku, and so he rightfully inherited the lands along with his stool. From a legal standpoint, the courts have sometimes assigned “stool land” a variety of meanings. Legally, stool land, at least in certain areas of the Southern Gold Coast, was nothing but unowned property under a chief’s political authority. They once held the opinion that “stool land” exclusively consisted of territory that was an attachment to a political chief’s stool. They also stated that stool lands were undeveloped areas that may be considered to be connected to the closest stool, which was thought to symbolise a village (Pogucki, 1957). It’s important to remember that, despite the fact that the legalese kept changing, the fundamentals of what constituted “stool land” remained the same. Stool family land was land that was given to a family for that family’s exclusive use after a member ascended to the stool. So in a literal sense, stool family land was family land. He was making reference to Akan customary law of inheritance which vested private and family land in a matrilineage to be passed down as inheritance. The sub chief or the family/clan head therefore inherited the land but only as a custodian (Sarbah, 1968). Since a chief was not permitted to hold any personal property, such land has a propensity in Akan communities to be included under “stool land.” Everything he acquired while residing on the stool, including women, slaves, farms, and gold dust, became stool property.¹⁸ Casely Hayford explains how a private land could become family or stool land because of Akan succession laws. He asserts that:

What the head of a family acquires today in his own individual right will in the next generation be quite indistinguishable from the general ancestral property of which he was a trustee.¹⁹

Anyan also explained that he and the Odikro owned separate stool lands in Nsuaem, and therefore he did not need Kofi Ladi’s permission before selling his own land. However, he denied selling or pledging the Otopaako land to Kudjo Kwaw. According to him, the plaintiff had promised to exact ground rent from the occupants of the Otopaako land to assist him (Anyan) to pay off a debt, but Odikro Ladi reneged on that promise. He therefore acquired a loan of ₤13 from Kudjo Kwaw, using the Otopaako lands as security. Although such land was neither sold nor mortgaged under Fante customary property laws, it was sometimes permitted when a need for money to pay off family debt occurred. Only after great consideration and agreement from other senior family members could this be carried out (Dumehashie 1997).

These claims were corroborated by his witnesses, Kudjo Jata and Chief John Vanderpuye and also by one of Kofi Ladi’s witnesses, who testified that even though he was present when the ₤13 was counted and sent to Ojuan where Kudjo Kwaw lived, thereafter he did not see any bailiff coming to deliver documents of the sale SCT. 2/4/24 (1896). He also claimed that later he sought the help of Odikro Ladi to help him settle the debt owed to Kudjo Kwaw, and that Odikro obliged and settled the debt. He insisted that this in no way meant that he had relinquished any lands to the Chinni (Kyiren) stool since no agreement was made with the plaintiff to that effect. This was fully borne out by Chief Vanderpuye who was a divisional chief of Otublohum, in Ussher Town Accra, of the Ga State and was well versed in land tenure systems of the coastal states. He explained it in his testimony:

… These Kings have subordinate chiefs under them who have lands attached to their stool and called stool property. The Kings also have stool property. The subordinate chiefs of King Tackei have lands attached to their stool. Their stool property does not belong to King Tackei. The paramount chief is not necessarily the owner of the lands of his subordinate chiefs. If King Ababio and his chiefs disagreed it would not be unusual for the latter to ask King Tackei to settle the matter. This set would not show that King Tackei is the owner of the land of the James Town Stool. If a subordinate chief is deposed and the paramount chief decides in his favour that would give him the right to go back to his stool and enjoy his property. The deposition of a stool holder does not deprive him of his right as a townsman. He could went [go] on the land of the stool as any other townsman, a stool holder fighting on behalf of stool property would have the right with the consent of his Chiefs to pledge the stool land to pay the debt. It would be right for the townspeople to collect to pay the debt SCT 2/4/24 (1896).

Family lands and stool family lands did share an individual piece of land as their origin. Because of this, in Gomoa and Fanteland, the ownership of property was transferred to one’s matrilineage or abusua at the time when a portion of previously vacant land was first inhabited. So, a big chunk of Gomoa Nsauem land has been put inviolably in the hands of the Agona family. In reality, before the development of the cocoa industry at the turn of the nineteenth century, individual land ownership in the Akan land tenure was a very uncommon occurrence. This was because farmers needed to be certain of their returns over a longer time frame. The need for private land ownership resulted from this.

Kobina Anyan further alleged that the Odikro was acting in concert with Ashiaku, a man who had previously claimed ownership of the Otopaako land, to strip him of his legitimately inherited land. With regards to the accusation that he had a history of selling stool land, Kobina Anyan denied any wrongdoing in that sale. According to him, his ownership of that land had never been contested and it was even the townsmen, including Ashiaku, who assisted him in finding a buyer SCT. 2/4/24 (1896). In dispensing justice, the court held that the Twidan clan had no claim of ownership over the Otopaako lands SCT. 2/4/24 (1896). The Twidan appealed this ruling twice, first in 1900 and then in 1912, both to no avail.²⁰ At this time, the value of the land had appreciated to ₤200.²¹

Again, in 1943, Nana Bondam Entsey, who also became the Chief of Chinni (Kyiren) and had jurisdiction over the Kwaakwatsia lands, appealed the matter before the Provincial Commissioner’s Court of the Central Province at Cape Coast, where the case was heard by Acting Commissioner W.H. Beeton. However, Nana Bondam Entsey died the next year after satisfying all the conditions imposed on him and securing Leave to Appeal from the Native Tribunal of the Gomoa Assin State, so the court granted an affidavit by Nana Bondam Okwan, his successor, to be substituted in his place.²² According to the Supreme Court records, the appellant summoned the Agona family, represented by Kobina Seifu, to produce a document or any witnesses attesting to the sale of the land. However, the witness cited by the Agona family, the Nifahene of Gomoa Ajumako state, failed to appear before the tribunal. Instead, he sent his clerk, who the Twidan family objected to as an unqualified person to speak to the facts of the matter L.S.25, (1944). The appellant also submitted that the Tribunal did not give his case proper consideration on the grounds that the Tribunal listened to hearsay, did not properly admit his exhibits, and did not inspect the land and that amounted to bias in the respondent’s favour. The respondent, however, was not called upon for submissions by the Supreme Court. The native court in its judgement dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the subject matter was res judicata (a case in which a final decision has been rendered and which is no longer susceptible to appeal; and prohibits re-litigation of a claim between the same parties.) and that this was fully borne out by the appellant’s own admission to the tribunal L.S.25, (1944).

From a legal standpoint, the courts have occasionally assigned stool lands a variety of definitions. In some areas of Southern Gold Coast, stool land was nothing but unowned property under a chief’s political jurisdiction. They once held that stool land solely consisted of such land as was an attachment to a political chief’s stool. Again, they construed that “stool lands” were undeveloped areas that might be connected to the stool that was closest to them, which would mean that they were part of a community (Pogucki, 1957). It is important to note that despite the ever changing legal definitions of stool lands, the essence of what constituted stool land remained the same. Needless to say, neither the traditional court interpretation nor colonial court statutes bode well for the case of the Twidan.

A defeated but relentless Nana Bondam Okran swore an affidavit in support of an application for conditional leave to appeal the judgement at the West African Court of Appeal in 1945, stretching the already protracted dispute even further beyond the shores of the Gold Coast L.S.25, (1944). Yet again, he suffered another loss, and until 1976, it seemed that the land had experienced some respite from the dispute.

Curiously, a free-hold tenancy agreement signed that year by the Agona family headed by Abusuapayin Kojo Essel and the people of Kwaakwatsia, represented by Tufuhene Kweku Attah, was witnessed by Omannkyeame Kofi Gyan (the chief linguist of Kwaakwatsia) and Asafokyeame Kweku Sakyi (the linguist of the Asafohene). The tenancy agreement contained a clause which obligated the tenants to

… pay allegiance or serve the said Mankrado stool and to pay homage to the stool whenever the stool holds its festival.²³

This clause basically compelled the tenants to recognise the Agona family as their landlords because, in Akan tradition, paying allegiance or homage to a stool is a public recognition of its power and influence over occupiers or tenants. Interestingly, at that point, the Twidan family seems to have accepted Agona ownership of the land, as evidenced by the presence of the chief linguist. It was just recently that the Agona Swedru High Court dispensed justice in favour of the Twidan ownership of the said lands.²⁴

The Otopaako land dispute in Nsuaem is one of the oldest and most protracted in Ghanaian history. It has been contested for over 120 years punctuated by intermittent eruptions of armed confrontations between members of the Twidan and Agona clans. The Kyidomhene of Nsauem recalls several skirmishes where both sides, armed with stones, bricks, pestles, iron cudgels and other weapons, launched projectiles at each other causing severe damage to humans and property.²⁵ This, of course, translates into significant losses for both parties. Historical records show that the expenditure on legal proceedings and other resources that have been expended in pursuing this case exceeds calculable proportions. Court records indicate that the Twidan family spent over ₤100 (worth over £13,537 today) in court fees alone from 1896 to 1945 L.S.25, (1944). This figure does not include fines and reliefs paid in kind at the native tribunals, transportation of witnesses and supporters to and from the numerous trials, incentives for witnesses; and other such resources invested in the pursuit of the case. Given how definitively both oral history and five different judicial authorities recognised Agona ownership of the Otopaako lands, it is reasonable to assume that the lawyers for the Twidan clan played on their clients’ will to pursue the case to enrich themselves. This explains why Nana Bondam Okran, an illiterate petty trader occupying a relatively low-ranking stool, came to know of the West African Court of Appeal in Sierra Leone and was willing to petition the court even after seven previous rulings all categorically dismissed his claims to the land.

Historically, protracted cases involving chiefs and stool lands in the Gold Coast were the golden gooses of the legal profession. Many lawyers took advantage of such cases to charge exorbitant and inflated fees since the chiefs pursuing such cases had deep pockets and were willing to commit resources to see the trials through. As written by Ofosu-Mensah Ababio, in the early 1900’s, lawyers could charge as much as £5746 (worth about £342,733 today)²⁶ as legal fees, service charges, and professional fees (Ofosu-Mensah, 2015). From the perspective of the chiefs, though, land is everything to a ruler. Land was venerated by the Akan because it belonged to the ancestors, who, in their divine wisdom, gave it to the living without severing their claim to it. As a result, they were continuously on alert to ensure that it was distributed fairly and used appropriately (Daniel, 1968). The stools served as the representatives for these ancestors, and the people who sat on them were the chiefs. The Akan proverb “the land belongs to the chief” refers to the fact that all authority is derived from the land because it belonged to the forefathers Madeline (1964).

In Akan societies, “the pattern of wealth and income distribution, social and political influence were most often determined by the laws governing land tenure.” (Daniel, 1968). Due to the fact that they were the primary recipients of the money generated by the lands under their control, aristocracies in these cultures may be classed as members of the bourgeoisie class (Dumehashie, 1997). The main posts in the Akan political structure were arranged in a hierarchical manner, ensuring that the wealth created was divided in descending order along the social scale. Since land was wealth, the loss of even a small portion of chiefdom’s territory amounted to a significant reduction in its ability to influence politics and the economy (Dumehashie, 1997). The extent of a chief’s land is also a direct indicator of the extent of his power and influence. During festivals, the people who live or work on stool lands come to pay homage and tribute to the chief. The number of people who show up is a direct indicator of the extent of the stool’s power. It is therefore understandable that chiefs were willing to pay absurd amounts of money to preserve or acquire this power. This perhaps is the strongest point in support of how well both sides understand the significance of land to any ruling power and how badly the Twidan wants to erase any history of the sale of the Otopaako lands to the Agona. It could even be said that the land dispute was a contest for political power between the two families.

The same may be said about Akyem Abuakwa in regards to the political corruption that existed in Gomoa Nsuaem during Otenyi Kwaku’s reign. When Okyenhene Amoako Atta III was accused of leading a life of wild spending at the cost of the riches of the state, his own Elders removed him from office. During his twenty-one-month rule, he is said to have collected an unprecedented total income of around £2,500 without using any of it for the benefit of the community. Additionally, he was charged with using £800 in public monies that had been entrusted to him in January 1912 to “making large presents in cash” to his lovers and pay ayeferℇ (ie., seduction fees) ADM 1097 (1912). “The actions of Abuakwa chiefs throughout the colonial era supported what Zey (1999). said after examining Coleman’s (Coleman, 1990) and Friedman and Hechter’s writings (Hechter, 1988). They observe that the central thesis of rational choice theory depicts that “social interaction is basically an economic transaction that is guided in its course by the actors’ rational choices based on rigorous calculus approach; humans, or man of neoclassical economic theory and its rational derivatives, are selfish and greedy, or at least exclusively self-interested” (Hechter, 1988). This is exactly what Okyenhene Amoako Atta III and Odrikro Otenyi Kwaku did. They used their authority and power to advance their personal interests much to the detriment of their citizens.

The situation seems to support the claims made by political historians. As a consequence of improper accounting practises inside the traditional authority, Belfield noted in 1912 that chiefs sold property outside of the traditional framework and pocketed the money for personal use, leading to financial irregularities. Belfield’s information was corroborated by Addo-Fening, who said: “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.” Addo-Fening, (1987).

4. Conclusion

History has repeatedly taught the lesson that in the nomination and consideration of chieftaincy candidates, the character and morality of the nominees should not be overlooked, no matter the motivation. The life and legacy of Otanyi Kwaku is yet another demonstration of this point. The sale of the Otopaako lands was a transaction that violated the traditional laws governing Akan land tenure. More recently, Woodman, (1964) relied on Jackson J. Woodman, (1964) to show that family and group alienations of communal lands were prohibited by customary law unless they were done to raise money to pay off an urgent debt owed by the community that could not be paid in any other way.²⁷ This perspective on family land was backed up by the Awortelde v. Esshon (Sar 1872) case and some evidence from Sarbah (Sar 1872) Jackson J. made an argument regarding the social implications of these alienations. It was said that it was against the law to sell the land that had been earned by the ancestors’ industry and labor due to traditional reverence for them.

Under the Akan land tenure, Otenyi Kwaku should have reported such a significant sale to his superiors, the Chief of Kyiren and his elders, before proceeding. Though under certain conditions, stool land sale was traditionally allowed, the land tenure laws prohibit any sale that would grant the buyer or mortgagee rights that transcend the power of the original landowners. Selling off such large tracts of land, by implication, gave away considerable power and influence that shifted the balance of power against the ruling house. Thus, Otenyi Kwaku, in a bid to save himself from certain shameful death, skirted the laws and acted contrary to the interests of his own family.

5. Oral Sources

Table

Name	Position	Age	Date	Town
Nana Aquah	Kyidomhene	80	19^th March, 2020	Gomoa Nsuaem
Abusuapanyin Kwame Asiako	Family head	84	8^th October, 2022	Gomoa Nsuaem
Okyeame Kwame Otenyi	Linguist	79	8^th October, 2022	Gomoa Nsuaem
Opanyin Kofi Asaa	Elder	80	26^th March, 2020	Gomoa Nsuaem
Kobina Ebo	Supi	82	15^th October, 2022	Gomoa Nsuaem
Opanyin Kwame Asare	Elder	83	8^th October, 2022	Gomoa Nsuaem
Charles Aquah	Elder	70	12^th March, 2020	Gomoa Nsuaem
Hon. Arthur	Elder	60	8^th October, 2022	Gomoa Nsuaem
Okyeame R.O. Dodoo	Linguist	78	18^th July, 2021	Gomoa Nsuaem
Abusuapanyin Adunsan	Family head	88	8^th October, 2022	Gomoa Nsuaem
Obaatan Bentum	Obaatan of Gomoa Nsuaem	83	17^th March 2020	Gomoa Nsuaem

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah

Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah is an Associate Professor in the Department of History at the University of Ghana, Legon. He is an economic and social Historian with special interest in gold and diamond mining in West Africa and issues in migration in the West African 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 Publishers; New York. He is professionally affiliated to the Ghana Studies Council (USA), Africa Studies Association (ASA, USA), The World History Association. He is also an Associate member of African Studies Centre in Leiden.

Notes

1. Interview with Nana Konadu Takyi Firi II, Krontihene of Techiman Traditional area by author on 25^th July 2021 at Techiman, Bono East Region. This was confirmed by Nana Afia Brafi, Queenmother of Techiman Traditional Area in an interview with the author in Techiman on 13^th August, 2021.

2. Interview with Elders of Gomoa Nsuaem by author, Gomoa Nsuaem on 26^th March, 2020. This was confirmed by the chiefs and elders of Ayensuadze on 9^th September 2022.

3. Interview with Elders of Gomoa Nsuaem by author, Gomoa Nsuaem on 12^th March, 2020

4. Interview with Elders of Ayensuadze by author, Ayensuadze 9^th September 2022

5. Interview with Elders of Gomoa Nsuaem by author, Gomoa Nsuaem on 12^th March, 2020

6. Interview with Akyempimhene Nana Acquah at Gomoa Nsuaem 26^th February, 2021

7. Interview with Elders of Gomoa Nsuaem by author, Gomoa Nsuaem on 12^th March, 2020

8. Interview with Elders of Gomoa Nsuaem by author, Gomoa Nsuaem on 12^th March, 2020

9. Interview with Elders of Gomoa Nsuaem by author, Gomoa Nsuaem on 12^th March, 2020

10. Interview with Elders of Gomoa Nsuaem by author, Gomoa Nsuaem on 12^th March, 2020

11. In other words, once an item becomes family property, in principle it remains so in perpetuity. Ollenu and Woodman (1985 p.148).

12. Interview with Elders of Nsuaem by author, Gomoa Nsuaem on 8^th October, 2022.

13. £64.16 in 1940 → 2022 | UK Inflation Calculator.” n.d. www.in2013dollars.com. Accessed June 15, 2022. https://www.in2013dollars.com/uk/inflation/1940?amount=5746.

14. Interview with the elders of the Twidan Clan by author at Gomoa Nsuaem on 8^th October, 2022

15. Interview with Abusuapanin Kwasi Anan and elders of Ayensuadze by author on 5^th October, 2022

16. Exhibit “B”, re case Nana Bondam Entsey vs. Kobina Seifu. PRAAD, Accra.

17. Exhibit “B”, re case Nana Bondam Entsey vs. Kobina Seifu. PRAAD, Accra.

18. Exhibit “B”, re case Nana Bondam Entsey vs. Kobina Seifu. PRAAD, Accra.

19. See for example. John Mensah Sarbah. Fanti National Constitution London William Cloves 1906. pp.4–6

20. Exhibit “C”, re case Nana Bondam Entsey vs. Kobina Seifu, T.Regr.16/5/44. PRAAD, Cape Coast.

21. Exhibit “C”, re case Nana Bondam Entsey vs. Kobina Seifu, T.Regr.16/5/44. PRAAD, Cape Coast.

22. Exhibit “C”, re case Nana Bondam Entsey vs. Kobina Seifu, T.Regr.16/5/44. PRAAD, Cape Coast.

23. Farming or Tenancy Agreement between Opanyin Kweku Etu and Kwaakwatsia Nsuaem Manfo.

24. Interview with Honourable Arthur, a member of the Agona Clan of Gomoa Nsuaem on February 13^th, 2022. This was confirmed by Kyidomhene Nana Aquah at Gomoa Nsuaem on 19^th March 2022.

25. Interview with Kyidomhene of Gomoa Nsuaem on February 13, 2021 at Nsauem.

26. £64.16 in 1940 → 2022 | UK Inflation Calculator.” n.d. www.in2013dollars.com. Accessed June 15, 2022. https://www.in2013dollars.com/uk/inflation/1940?amount=5746.

27. As quoted in Emmanuel Ababio Ofosu-Mensah’s “Political Corruption in Ghana: A Case study of the colonial Akyem Abuakwa Traditional State,”Issues in Political discourse Analysis Vol. 5, No.1 Nova Science Publishers (2017)