By Thomas Kofi Kyeremeh
The assertion by Otumfor Osei Tutu II that all of Bonoman — including Tano-Subin, Nsawkaw, Berekum, Nkoranza, Mo, Banda, Japekrom, and Drobo — is subordinate to the Golden Stool of the Asante Empire continues to stir controversy. Supporters of his claim, such as Nana Obiri Boahene and others, have used radio and social media to push historical arguments in its favor. This article intends to challenge those claims and calls for a serious, documented debate — not mere rhetoric.
Historical Context: Ashanti Empire and Its Decline
There is no dispute that the Asante built a powerful empire. At its peak, the Asante Empire stretched from the coast — covering what are now the Eastern, Central, and Western Regions — deep into present-day Côte d’Ivoire to the east and bordering the Mossi Kingdom in the north. However, the arrival of the British dramatically changed Ghana’s political geography. While the British were not always successful in battles — for example, on January 22, 1824, the British lost at the Battle of Nsamankow, when their commander was killed — by 1893–1894 they had assembled a formidable force that overwhelmed the Asante. Following the military defeat, the Asante sued for peace. Under the Treaty of Fomena (February 13, 1874), the then-Asantehene agreed to indemnify the British with 50,000 ounces of gold — a heavy blow indeed. The final collapse came in 1896, when the British forced the Asante leadership to sign a protectorate treaty. The Asantehene and other leaders were exiled to the Seychelles, marking an official end to the Asante Empire as a political entity.
Why the Asantehene’s Claims Over Bonoman Are Historically Weak
With the dissolution of the Asante Empire in 1896, any imperial authority — real or alleged — over subjugated territories ceased. The argument that Bono lands remain subject to Asanteman because of past conquests thus lacks legitimacy. Later, in 1935, the British instituted indirect rule by creating the Ashanti Confederacy under colonial administration. This Confederacy was not a renewed Asante Empire but rather a colonial administrative mechanism in which independent paramountcies — including Bono chiefs — entered voluntarily. Even among the initial members, some paramountcies opted out, demonstrating that membership was voluntary and not enforced. This fact undermines claims that Bono chiefs swore unqualified allegiance to the Golden Stool.
Bono Identity: A Distinct Heritage
The article recounts the rich history of Bono (Bonoman) communities, particularly in places like Techiman and villages such as Offuman, Buoyem, Tanoboase, Boankron, Tuobodum, and more. Many of these settlements trace their roots not to Asante but to migrations, wars, displacement, and re-settlement — often as a response to aggression from powerful states, including the Asante at times. For instance, after the destruction of the Bono Manso kingdom around 1723-1724 by an Asantehene, Bono people fled, regrouped, and later re-established themselves in Techiman — often under leadership emerging from Buoyem caves, not Ashanti lineage. This historical trajectory shows that Bono identity and authority derive from their own lineages and heritage — not from the Asante Empire or the Golden Stool.
The Present Danger: Cultural Manipulation and Instability
The author warns that continuing to push the narrative of Bono subservience to Asanteman — particularly by imposing Asante-installed chiefs over Bono towns — risks reopening old wounds and triggering violence. He notes rising tensions: forced installations of chiefs in towns such as Tanoso and Sampa have provoked backlash, including arson and gun violence. According to the author, such maneuvers amount to a dangerous attempt to rebuild a 21st-century “imperial empire” over Bonoman — backed not by legitimate traditional authority, but by historical distortions and political motives. This is a call to Bono leaders — traditional rulers, elders, and communities — to stand firm and reclaim their autonomy and heritage. The author argues that this is not about ethnic hostility, but about preserving dignity, identity, and historical truth.
My Thoughts & Observations
However, because the article draws heavily from oral history and community recollections, it would benefit from additional corroboration via archival documents, treaty texts, and academic sources.
The article serves as a strong challenge to contemporary claims of Asante supremacy over Bono lands — grounding its arguments in colonial treaties, historical upheavals, and transformations under British indirect rule.
It calls for a documented, academic debate, rather than emotionally charged rhetoric or unverified claims — which seems a healthy approach, especially for sensitive historical/ethnic issues.
Recent Comments