A Paradox of Kinship: Few societies in Ghana possess as clear and well-preserved a tradition of common ancestry as the Dagomba, Mamprusi and Nanumba. Linguistically and culturally, they belong to the Mole-Dagbani group, and their royal genealogies converge on a single ancestral figure, Naa Gbewaa. This tradition is affirmed not only in oral histories but also in early ethnographic writings. Yet paradoxically, these three kingdoms, born of one lineage, have evolved with remarkably little institutionalized kinship engagement. There have been no sustained joint councils, no regular reciprocal royal visits framed as family obligations, and no collective pilgrimage to Pusiga, the ancestral seat of Gbewa. This absence of cohesion raises a critical question. How did brothers become so distant, and what has this cost them historically and politically?
Common Origins in Oral Tradition and Early Scholarship
Across Dagbon, Mamprugu and Nanung, oral tradition consistently identifies Pusiga as the locus of political crystallization under Naa Gbewa. While migration narratives recall earlier movement through the Sahel and Hausaland, it is at Pusiga that kingship becomes territorially grounded and genealogies stabilize. Early writers did not invent this tradition; they recorded it. R. S. Rattray, writing in “The Tribes of the Ashanti Hinterland” (1932), observed that the Mamprusi, Dagomba and Nanumba were “closely related peoples” whose traditions “point unmistakably to common descent and shared political ideas of kingship.” Similar observations appear in the works of A. W. Cardinall and R. S. Tait, all of whom encountered striking consistency in Gbewaa traditions across these polities. Importantly, these accounts align with indigenous court histories and drum traditions. Gbewaa functions both as a historical ruler and as a symbolic anchor of legitimacy, embodying the moral and political foundations of Mole-Dagbani authority.
Separation at Mamprugu and the Founding of New Kingdoms
The separation of the Gbewaa lineage occurred after the consolidation of authority in Mamprugu. One branch remained and strengthened Mamprugu, while others moved southward and southeastward, establishing Dagbon and Nanung respectively. This dispersal should not be misread as fragmentation. In precolonial West African political culture, the founding of new states by royal kin was a recognized strategy of expansion. Authority flowed outward, but lineage bonds were expected to remain intact. Political autonomy did not imply cultural or ritual severance. The problem, therefore, was not the separation itself, but what followed.
The Erosion of Kinship and Institutional Memory
Over generations, kinship obligations weakened. Today, several patterns are evident. The absence of formal, periodic councils involving the three royal houses, a lack of official visits explicitly framed as kinship encounters, minimal public education on shared Gbewaa ancestry, and no collective return to Pusiga as a unified lineage. Perhaps most concerning is the reliance on external arbitration — colonial authorities in the past, and state institutions in the present, to resolve disputes that, by tradition, should be settled within the Gbewaa family. This development represents not only a political shift, but a departure from indigenous governance principles.
Ancestral Authority and the Question of Gbewaa’s Displeasure
Within Mole-Dagbani cosmology, ancestors are active moral agents. Kingship is legitimate only when it aligns with ancestral sanction. When custom is neglected, imbalance follows. Persistent chieftaincy conflicts, political instability and social fragmentation within Dagbon, Mamprugu and Nanung are therefore interpreted, within traditional discourse, as more than administrative failures. They are understood as symptoms of ancestral displeasure. The failure of the three kingdoms to collectively acknowledge Gbewaa at Pusiga is widely seen as a serious omission. Such interpretations are not superstition; they reflect a coherent indigenous political philosophy in which history, morality and authority are inseparable.
The Missed Power of Unity
Had Dagbon, Mamprugu and Nanung sustained their kinship institutions, they would likely have constituted one of the strongest political and cultural blocs in northern Ghana. Unity would have enabled internal resolution of disputes without external interference, greater cultural confidence and continuity, and stronger collective political voice. Even today, unity — understood not as political merger but as ritual, genealogical and diplomatic reaffirmation, could enhance conflict management, youth education, and cultural legitimacy.
Is It Too Late to Reconcile?
Historically and culturally, it is not too late. Reconciliation would require deliberate action such as a formal convocation of the three royal houses as kin, a joint pilgrimage to Pusiga, public reaffirmation of shared Gbewaa ancestry, commitment to internal conflict-resolution mechanisms, and systematic education of younger generations. Such steps would not erase past grievances, but they would restore the moral and historical foundation of Mole-Dagbani unity.
My Thoughts: Returning to the Source
The Dagomba, Mamprusi and Nanumba are bound by more than geography or language; they are bound by ancestry. The neglect of this bond has weakened institutions that were never meant to stand alone. Returning together to Pusiga, symbolically and practically, represents a return to legitimacy, balance and shared purpose. As early observers noted and oral tradition insists, the strength of the Gbewaa lineage lies not in separation, but in remembered unity.
FUSEINI ABDULAI BRAIMAH
+233208282575 / +233550558008
[email protected]