I preface my initial comments with the fascinating observation that, for the entirety of her life as an independent country, Ghana has contended with the cream of her thought leaders in a permanent division as to Nkrumah’s merits. To many of his admirers, he could do no wrong, he was a saint, saviour and messiah rolled into one; to many of his detractors, Nkrumah was the worst thing to have happened to Ghana and all her ills, past and present are attributable to him.

It is not difficult to conclude that with so much energy dissipated by both sides on the late leader, there has been little room for constructive engagement with the real facts of our recent history and the causes of our hitherto disappointing performance as a budding nation. The hope and promise encapsulated in the nascent Ghana, as a beacon of light that helped bring the rest of sub-Saharan Africa out of the long darkness of slavery and colonial exploitation has been squandered, at the altar of internecine bickering and petty self-seeking.

I hasten to add here that apart from sharing the same nationality, race and common humanity with him, I have no special credentials for wanting to pronounce on this remarkable man. It is probably sufficient to say that entirely on the back of some of the appalling efforts that have been made by previous writers on the man, I have concluded that I am as entitled to write about Kwame Nkrumah as anybody else out there; who knows, it may even be that something of what I say here might help one objective person make some sense of the plethora of information available on the man. If I achieve just that, I would be happy to walk away in the knowledge that I had succeeded in shedding a little light where all too often, there has been an excess of heat. So here goes.

Quite apart from reading some of Nkrumah’s own writings to help gain some insight into the man and his mind, it has been a revelation to explore some of the literature out there on Nkrumah. Much of it was skewed too far one way or the other, reflecting the enduring polarisation that characterises any discussion on the man. Far more useful to me were those tomes that exhibited real objectivity and some academic rigour.

Of these, I would recommend the following: (1) Ghana 1957-1966, Ben Amonoo, Allen & Unwin pub, 1981 (this book was a revision and enhancement of the author’s doctoral thesis presented to the University of Exeter in 1973), (2) Kwame Nkrumah, The Political Kingdom in the Third World, David Rooney, IB Tauris pub. 1988, (for his book, the author, a specialist on Ghana from Cambridge University, unearthed unpublished material in Ghana, Britain & the U.S., where he had accessed the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) papers; and (3) By Nkrumah’s Side, The Labour and the Wounds, Tawiah Adamafio, Rex Collings, London pub, 1982.

By design, I have chosen to write on an aspect of Nkrumah that seems to me, pivotal to any real understanding of his failures and achievements as the Gold Coast’s and Ghana’s first indigenous leader. This was his relationship with J B Danquah, who led the opposition to Nkrumah’s leadership up to and after independence, until his incarceration and death in prison.

The competing narratives on Kwame Nkrumah have run something approximating to the following; from the Danquah/Busia camp, an assertion that the former was a usurper who snatched power from those more suited and entitled to it, hogged the same and thereafter became a tyrant who had to be removed by any means, fair or foul. The version from the Nkrumahist camp runs that, having been bested in fair political contest, the Danquah/Busiah camp refused to accept the democratic decision of the people, fought tooth and nail from the pre-independence era, until they finally succeeded with external assistance in substituting their will for that of the people.

The history books abound with enough information for a credible academic treatise to be written on the subject; I do not intend to undertake that exercise myself and I doubt that any competent scholar will be looking to me to provide them with the sources for such an enterprise here. What I propose to do is set out my own interpretation of the salient points concerning the issue, based on my analysis of the data that I deemed credible. Hopefully, this will trigger a reasoned conversation, devoid of histrionics or hyperbole to our mutual edification.

Any attempt to disparage the contribution made by J B Danquah to Ghana’s independence movement would be counter-productive, the simple reason being, an abundance of objective evidence that his exertions to that effort were substantial both in scope and depth. The problem only arises when his acolytes insist that his efforts were exceptional, because they were not. Now, it may be that, if Danquah had had the opportunity to lead the country as he clearly wanted to, he might have led us into prosperity, peace and harmony. We will never know this however, because he failed to jump the first hurdle for any true democrat, in pursuit of legitimate political power – that of persuading his people that he had a vision of a future that reflected their aspirations.

Nana Joseph Kwame Kyeretwie Boakye Danquah (18 December 1895 – 4 February 1965) was a Ghanaian statesman, scholar, lawyer and a historian.
Nana Joseph Kwame Kyeretwie Boakye Danquah (18 December 1895 – 4 February 1965) was a Ghanaian statesman, scholar, lawyer and a historian.

Both in the general elections of 1954 and 1956, his vision of the future for Ghana and her people were thoroughly rejected at the ballot box, the people exercising their preference for the vision proffered by Nkrumah instead. In any credible analysis of the Nkrumah/Danquah question this should be the starting point for any reckoning of right or wrong on either side. This failure by the Danquah/Busia camp, to obtain the mandate to govern was even more remarkable because, both elections were held under the auspices of the British colonial government, who had a clear preference for the United Party (UP), as its leadership comprised many with “royal” pretensions, merchants, “intellectuals” and petit bourgeoisie, most of whom had bought into the British system of government by patronage, legalised coercion and subterfuge.

Short of physically putting Danquah into power, the British did everything they could to assist Danquah and his cohorts in their quest to succeed them. This included arresting and locking up members of the Convention Peoples Party (CPP) leadership, including Nkrumah himself, in the process.

Notwithstanding the covert assistance given to the Danquah/Busia camp at both elections, they singularly failed to persuade the people of Ghana to vote them into power. Indeed, in the final election before independence, the verdict was so overwhelming, that out of 37 seats in competition, the CPP won all but 2 of them!

To add insult to injury, Danquah himself failed to win the seat he contested! What is instructive about Danquah and his conduct at the time is that, on each rejection by the people he claimed he wished to serve, his reaction was neither noble nor democratic. Refusing to accept the will of the people, he went to the ‘mattresses’ with his allies, just like common mafia hoodlums, orchestrating the destruction of property, the killing and maiming of innocent citizens and generally disrupting the conduct of government business.

It has always seemed a bit rich when Danquah’s supporters seek to make out that their man was a law-abiding advocate of democratic principles, even as all the objective evidence suggests that his reputedly formidable intellect notwithstanding, he was merely a power-hungry megalomaniac, with an overblown sense of entitlement and a distinct inability to deploy what cerebral skills he possessed, to achieving a better understanding of the people’s aspirations. A misconceived sense of infallibility meant that, in spite of the clear rejection of his message by the very people he sought to lead, he was prepared to use any and all non-democratic means to frustrate the will of the people; these included terror, separatism, tribalism and any other bit of subterfuge that came to his undoubtedly fecund mind.

It was most revealing to discover in my reading, that when he realised he could not lead the country as it was constituted, Danquah and his lot, had been prepared to fight not only for federalism in that tiny country but, when even that eluded them, he was prepared to have the country dismembered so that he could lead a new off-shoot nation from the debris, comprising the “Akyim Abuakwa kingdom!” Indeed, when it appeared to him at a point that independence would be achieved with Nkrumah at the helm and not him, he saw nothing wrong with arranging delegations to the very colonizers who had appropriated our country and its people for their own ends, to plead that we were not yet ready for independence.

There is much in our history that is shameful, but I can think of few more shameful, than an educated Black man, appearing in the hallways of power in the citadels of the white man, arguing that they should continue to retain the forced ownership of our country, its people and resources because unlike all other men, we were not yet ready to look after our own destiny!

So this was the man at the head of the opposition to the government that Nkrumah led from 1954, when he became Head of Government Business until the dawn of independence. On the one hand, Nkrumah, hedged about by the constraints of laws, much of which had been legislated by an exploitative foreign invader, on the other, Danquah, a thoroughly ruthless operator, unencumbered by any concept of respect for the rule of law, any law.

The question then is how, with such damning evidence against him, a myth has taken hold that Danquah was the democrat, law abiding nationalist, who was hounded to his death by the tyrannical, anti-democratic, power-hungry Nkrumah? This is where one has to acknowledge the creative genius of the Danquah/Busia “conspiracy”, as I refer to it. Taking a leaf from the play book of the Washington/London axis, they constructed a new, sanitised narrative, entirely false of course, but kept hammering it home so often, that inevitably, it took hold in the consciousness of at least, some of the people. Once this had been achieved, it was time to enlist the help of their external benefactors in Washington and London, who brought to bear their formidable array of weapons of intrigue. These included to start with, engineering a subtle external credit drought, manipulation of cocoa prices and other obstructive devises geared towards wearing down Nkrumah’s regime in its desire to achieve the objectives for which it had obtained the people’s mandate.

Kofi Abrefa Busia (11 July 1913 – 28 August 1978) was Prime Minister of Ghana from 1969 to 1972.
Kofi Abrefa Busia (11 July 1913 – 28 August 1978) was Prime Minister of Ghana from 1969 to 1972.

That Nkrumah was able to achieve anything at all in his relatively short tenure in office, is a tribute to the man’s tenacity and refusal to bow to malevolent pressure from within and without. The deck was quite simply, stacked against his project from the start, with any hope of success of his policies sandwiched between the crushing counterforces of a disloyal, seditious and violent political opposition, allied to a hostile parallel government comprising the senior civil service at home, underpinned by a virulent external campaign waged mainly from London and Washington. In the case of the civil service, the systematic sabotage to implementation of government policy is more lucidly detailed in Benjamin Amonoo’s erudite book cited above and I urge the reader to invest in a copy for their own enlightenment.

Further testament to Nkrumah’s democratic credentials is set out in a book also cited above, by the socialist lawyer, Tawiah Adamafio, famously imprisoned by Nkrumah during the frenzied period of assassination and treason attempts. Adamafio paints a picture of an incredibly fastidious democrat, who was at all times, concerned about working within the law and where the law needed changing, doing so in accordance with the existing rules. His frustration with Nkrumah for not going far enough in changing the system is palpable. The irony of Adamafio’s incarceration by his own side and subsequent release by the Danquah/Busia-sponsored junta only makes it more remarkable that, writing nearly two decades after the event, he was prepared to concede Nkrumah’s basic decency and adherence to lawful democratic precepts.

Even as I observe with horror, the travesty that passes for “multi” party politics as manifest in the U.S. over the last few years, the straitjacket of a one-party state is one I would not wish even on my worst enemy. The ferment and competition in ideas is the stuff of human progress and any system that restricts that process, in effect, curtails human progress. No prize is worth that diminution in freedom of thought and if I make any criticism of Nkrumah, it is that he ever resorted to that desperate measure.

However, I entirely appreciate the desperation under which he operated at the time; at home, he had no partners in democracy, as the opposition from the onset was disloyal to the country itself (CIA papers now available include a note written by Danquah to his CIA handler, enquiring about delay in a payment to his wife, during his incarceration and we now know how much Lieutenant General Emmanuel Kwasi Kotoka (1926–1967) and Brigadier Akwasi Amankwaa Afrifa (1936 –1979) received from the Americans to stage the coup that ultimately put Kofi Abrefa Busia (1913 –1978) in power; the civil service, exposed the myth of impartiality by running a parallel government dedicated to frustrating the elected government’s policies which, they were professionally and legally obliged to implement; to enhance this toxic brew further, abroad, Nkrumah faced the implacable, active enmity of the Brits and the Americans. It might have been possible to endure British hostility and survive, for after all, its power and influence had long been on the wane, but even now, what country on earth has what it takes to survive active hostility from the U.S. and still prosper?

It is instructive to note that, Nkrumah was really only in full control of the levers of political power for merely 6 years of his time in office, before he was undemocratically removed from office. Prior to that, he had operated under the constraints imposed by the British government from 1954 -1957 and from 1957- 1960, the pre-republican constitution. The advances in development that the country achieved during those 6 years were breath-taking in their own right, considering the British had been in charge for over 100 years and, save for a few roads and an anaemic railway, built specifically to help them extract the gold and other resources that were of interest to them, left the territory essentially in stone-age condition, with a measly “endowment” of some £300m, to build a whole new country; when it is considered that it was all achieved in the teeth of the internal treachery briefly described above and constant threats from powerful external forces, it is almost a miracle in human terms.

Since Nkrumah’s departure, the Danquah/Busia camp have had power for 14 years, in 3 of which they had absolute power under the junta – it would be interesting to put side by side, Nkrumah’s achievements in his 6 years, and their achievements over the 14 but that would be for another discussion. On this occasion, my contention is that as between Danquah and Nkrumah, the facts unequivocally indicate the latter was the democrat and the former was anything but.

I’d also recommend that if you never read any other of Nkrumah’s books, do yourself a favour and read “Neo-Colonialism, The Last Stage of Imperialism.” Even today, stripped of some of the Marxist jargon that was popular with liberation practitioners of the day, the book is an amazing analysis of exploitative capitalism, how it works, its various tentacles, from financial institutions to the extractive conglomerates and how it protects itself from legitimate censure. What is even more impressive is that, Nkrumah wrote this book while in the thick of literally fighting for his very life, at the same time as struggling, against formidable odds to realise the vision he had sold to his people to rid them of the scourge of centuries of humiliation, tens of decades of servitude and colonial exploitation. In his last years in office end, no man was more hounded than Nkrumah, yet he maintained his dignity right to the very end.

It is a source of considerable personal pride that, in spite of a herculean effort over the years, mounted by the U.S. and Britain in their propaganda, and by the Danquah/Busia establishment including costly probe after probe, not one penny of asset has been found stashed anywhere that would support any claim that Nkrumah was personally corrupt. Contrast that with the documented accounts of corruption from Danquah/Busia to the present incarnation of that tradition and Nkrumah’s reputation begins to look even healthier even as the years move on.

My final comment at this stage of what I hope will be a lively discussion is that, Nkrumah was an exceptional individual, uniquely qualified to serve the purpose, which he chose for himself, of facilitating the emancipation of his people. He possessed the intellectual heft to understand the true situation of the Black man, leading him to conclude that the independence of Ghana would be meaningless, unless it was aligned with that of the rest of Africa. All that has occurred since he uttered those sentiments indicate the enduring veracity within those words. They are as true today as they were when he said them. That is why the world over, his reputation continues to grow amongst Africans, people of African descent and the fair minded. History will vindicate him with recognition of his true worth. In respect of his key historical antagonists, there is no indication of any growing interest in the life and achievements of either Danquah or Busia; given the dearth of any meaningful achievements other than the personal in that regard, perhaps that is understandable.

45 COMMENTS

  1. EVERY PERSONALITY HAS CRITICS/HATTER AS WELL AS ADMIRERS/LOYAL FOLLOWERS……EVEN THE OLDMAN ABOVE….HE OF ALL PERSONS…FACES SUCH

  2. Nkrumah was simply the best Ghana has seen or will ever see, take for instance power generation, so many years after Nkrumah he is still responsible for over half of the power generated in Ghana today, that alone sets him aside from the other leaders who I do not believe had any vision for Mother Ghana.

  3. They hate him because he braced all odds, he proved them wrong, he didn’t bow down to their massa , he mind was liberated, he proved to them Africa could do it and that’s what they didn’t want to see, those who love Osagyefo never saw him as a saint, in fact how would a saint deal with ‘idiots’, some of us even feel he was too lenient.

    • You are indeed stupid to opined that those who opposed nkrumah were idiots and that he nkrumah was very lenient with those people. To let you into history and knowledge proper, before nkrumah was, there were the J E Casely Hayfords, Mensah Sarbahs, Kwegyir Aggreys and Paa Grants and the 40. We Fantes of Anomabo especially will never worship nkrumah-Africa’s first dictator whose legacy is what we are witnessing in this Mills-Mahama NDC government full of deceits, treachery and hypocriscy: the “four legs good, two legs bad; all animals are equal but some are more equal than others” paradox of good governance in today’s Ghana. Sad situation.

  4. Morpheus, learn to know this day, that he who has been ordained and approved for the Crown by the ancestors, that his words are always written on the wall and his utterance are characterized with prophecy and wisdom.

    Nkrumah’s books are the only books I read, and after shed uncontrollable tears from my eyes from heir beginnings to their ends. It always repeats itself when I pick such books from my library. Yet I am not a CPP member. True change was written all around Nkrumah.

    He made his life an epitome of African Freedom and never compromised his fate to the end as some African leaders did. I might believe that he may have understood the Africa proverb: “if you are born to wear the crown and you never fight for it, you may loose it.”

    I never worship him as a celebrity as I see my other colleagues do, but I am forever in-depthed to him because he really had the solution of the equational matrix of African predicament yesterday and today which needed posterity to build on.

    For me he is the only African leader who qualifies for a 28 gun shot salute than any leader who had ever existed on African continent to shake it very foundation for freedom after our colonization. Through a pure-heartened sacrifice for Africans not only the country he emanated from.

  5. The picture used here for Nana Joseph Kwame Kyeretwie Boakye Danquah reveals who he is. A wig? A blonde wig? Massa, I am glad Ghana didn’t give these idiots power over Nkrumah. We would have gone to ashes. This is an incredible piece on Nkrumah. The man himself would have been very proud. Kudos. Give us more Grandmother Africa!

  6. What is this? Who is this Morpheus? Nkrumah was a fraud, a fake and a liar. The man was so narcissistic that he even called himself God. God? This is the man you are praising here like a chicken with the head cut off? Why else did he declare Ghana a one party state, if not because he was a megalomaniac? This is what you claim is democracy and then insult the pious integrity of Danquah-Busia? Ghanafuor paaa! Morpheus indeed.

    • Very typical, you sound like Nana Akuffo-Addo, pouting the “ALL DIE BE DIE” mantra. Do you realize that when you can someone a liar, the person must have lied? That you need to give us the example of the lie? When you call someone a fraud, that you need to expatiate? What is this? This behaviour of saying anything one pleases, just to hear yourselves talk? Just to confirm that your voice box can vibrate?

    • I hope your comment is not being born out of partisanship and tribalism. If it is, then it is the very thing putting the Danquah-Busia Tradition in opposition many times…. The one party state Nkrumah declared was triggered by the Danquah-Busia Tribal politics. It did not in anyway mean that Nkrumah wanted to rule Ghana forever… It was meant to avoid partisan and the tribal politics we see today. Anyway, which party is suffering in Ghana more due to tribal and partisan politics? Is it not our own Danquah-Busia tradition? Is it not because of tribalism in NPP that NDC is enjoying a lot of wins? Do you know that as more and more people discover the tribal foundation of the Danquah-Busia tradition, they turn into NDC because even though almost all voltarians vote for NDC, J.J. Rawlings formed NDC on non-tribal lines incorporating people from all tribes right from the beginning? Nkrumah won all the elections in his time. Danquah-Busia Tradition Challenged all. NDC has won several times…. Danquah-Busia has challenged it several times….

      Note that the voltarians do not vote for NDC because of Rawlings or because they like NDC. They vote for NDC because they do not like NPP. Again the people in the Upper West Do not vote for NDC because Rawlings is a northerner. They vote for NDC because they do not like NPP. Actually, all the three northern Region people are becoming NDC not because Rawlings is from there but because they do not like NPP. Do you know the reason? The reason is the tribal political foundation of NPP….. the NPP Gurus and lovers shy away from this truth… But the more people discover it, the more they will decide to vote for NPP only when they are fed up with NDC!

  7. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real (Danquah-Busia) and one’s declared aims (Nkrumahism), one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhaustive idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. Morpheus has not restored Nkrumah’s tradition, he has obliterated it. Danquah-Busia were far more better choices for the Gold Coast and Ghana. Abi.

  8. The murky political history of Ghana has for some time rendered itself quite intractable. Many bloviate about Ghana’s humble, yet difficult beginnings. Nkrumahism and the Danquah-Busia Tradition have dominated Ghanaian politics from start. Still, these schools of thought will continue to define and influence the mentality of the nation. But at some point, we must grasp what these real differences were and what impact they have on our present and the political and subsequently, the socio-economic future of the generations after us. We must begin as a nation to forge our collective narrative about our political history. Yes, there is not one interpretation, but we can still agree that the facts of the times are not for interpretation. Perspectives can differ, often obscuring clarity. What Morpheus has accomplished here is monumental. You must read to clearly comprehend the times, you must persevere to shed any biases, you must sit up nights if you should, you must inquire, and exert the utmost power of your mind. If one way does not lead to the complete comprehension of this period in Ghana’s history, take another; if obstacles arise, then still another; until, if your strength holds out, you will find this straightforward no-nonsense recount of Nkrumah’s ordeal in our political history clear, which may have at first, looked dark.

  9. Nkrumah is the reason why when they sleep they can’t sleep. They burnt his books, at a point they barred Ghanaians from making any reference to him, textbooks for schools demonize him …. Etc etc .. But still Nkrumah’s name blazes! Today, How else will kids be taught and examined on the “downfall of Nkrumah” but not the espionage of Dankwa …

    Fairly recently, there were attempts to force the nation Ghana into a needless debate on The position of an apostrophe in the word “Founder’s” … Aaah well, how do we recognize as founder(s) people who opposed the founding the nation? Where would we be, if the Queen had given them an ear? And which nation would they have been founders over? ……

  10. Sooner, we will come up with a third force that is ideologically sound, practical and engaging. The Constructivist… as we will be known, will seek to move from this dichotomy and its ensuing debate. The Danquah-bussia guys are naïve in their thinking that mere economic wellbeing according to European standards will set us free. Whereas the Nkrumaist are also making a similar mistake of thinking is it is enough to rival the west and rebel again them. Nkrumah was naïve by not being able to acknowledge the simple fact that having friends in the east meant he should be ready for war with the west regardless of whether he was ready or not. Both sides lack the understanding that as people-African people-we need to create our own yardstick, desist from competing and harness our own potentials. What is good about constructivism is that it borne out of a social understanding of our environment; that we let our immediate surroundings shape how we think and engage each other; that we create yardsticks and standards that fit with our way of life and build thriving states whose modus operandi is based solely on African ways of life… that all that should matter but as we are engulfed in this western material consumption, people are inclined to shun this potent view.

    • Agreed. We need our own yardsticks, standards, and goals. We should use our ways of life to develop our countries. Couldn’t have said it better.

  11. Great analysis of the divide between Nkrumah and then Danquah-Busia political traditions. This is a must read for all people seeking an objective view on the reality on the Danquah-Busia tradition and its many myths!!

    • How exactly do you suggest this ‘growth’ take place without us dealing with the issue? We should all grow beyond these divisions but we should present them in an objective manner and deal with them.

      Williams Rich Nkrumah’s political ideology was Pan-Africanism and socialism was a means to that end.

  12. Lol….. Jonas dont you think we should delink the personalities of these two gaints from their political ideologies at this stage of our development. Doesn’t the narrative focus on their persons instead of thier political ideologies which, definitely out lives thier personalities. Yes Nkrumah was larger than life but his socialist ideologies dont resonate with me.

    • Nkrumah’s socialism but “Scientific Socialism”. One basic reason “Scientific Socialism” resonates with me is that, we (Ghana or Africa if you want) are more cooperative and communal. Capitalism I think discourages this. More importantly, our indigenous system of governance is more socialist…

    • Thats why we are backward and still a less developed country. We have a very negative mentality to free enterprise and liberal democracy.

  13. Socialism is and will be forever crap, although i subscribe to Pan-Africanism, socialism will never be a viable means to that end. Danquh-Busia may have taken capitalisim to the extremes in thier personal lives but their ideology seems to resonate with me.

  14. I am surprised that you take this article seriously. It is the most useless I have ever read on the subject. It rehashes the various CPP cliches and fabrications. One example: “Short of physically putting Danquah into power, the British did everything they could to assist Danquah and his cohorts in their quest to succeed them. This included arresting and locking up members of the Convention Peoples Party (CPP) leadership, including Nkrumah himself, in the process.” THAT is palpably false. If anything at all, it was Nkrumah who was aided , even guided unto the leadership of the country (reasons are outlines in Openheimer and Finch’s GHANA: END OF AN ILLUSSION). The claim that Danquah also wanted to establish a tribal (Akyem-Abuakwa ) state after failing to win a seat at the national elections, is also false. Sorry, bro; this is one long-winding hogwash

      • The author does not provide any proof or source for his assertions. Read it again. And that is typical of Nkrumah’s admirers.

      • He listed books he had read(I have read those books, too). But he did not cite where he got the assertion from, namely that the British tried to help JB Danquah to become leader of Ghana. The British hated Danquah to the core. That is the truth. Nkrumah’s model of government( unitary state) and policy on accumulation and use of Ghana’s revenues from cocoa exports favoured the British at the time. That was key to their duplicitous role in negotiations leading to independence. Ah, brothers read too many fables.

    • Perhaps Kwame Kyei-baffour it would help if you could cite the areas with palpable false information in the article. You have listed one thus far, then we could all investigate the truth of your assertions.

      • I mentioned two falsehoods actually. Let’s start from there: Another set of falsehoods: “However, I entirely appreciate the desperation under which he operated at the time; at home, he had no partners in democracy, as the opposition from the onset was disloyal to the country itself (CIA papers now available include a note written by Danquah to his CIA handler, enquiring about delay in a PAYMENT to his wife, during his incarceration and we now know how much Lieutenant General Emmanuel Kwasi Kotoka (1926–1967) and Brigadier Akwasi Amankwaa Afrifa (1936 –1979) received from the Americans to stage the coup that ultimately put Kofi Abrefa Busia (1913 –1978) in power

      • I see you cite the British assisting or supporting Danquah to win the election in 1954 and 56 as one such falsehood, do you mind stating the other?

      • That Danquah wanted to set up a tribal state after losing the elections. The entire article is a mass of

      • It is also not true that Nkrumah was in control of the economy and country for only nine years or short period. Nkrumah took full control of the economy and law-making process (via the CPP majority ) from 1952. In fact, his most laudable achievements were before we achieved independence. It is also risible for him to suggest that the amount we inherited from the colonial government was ‘measly’. In today’s terms, it would exceed more than 20 billion dollars. We could an extrapolation on that. The Ghana Nkrumah inherited was the richest black African nation. Fact. By 1966 we were dead broke. AND it is not true that he expended the bulk of the country’s finances on the brick and mortar projects. The overwhelming majority of them were procured with loans the payment of which fell on post-1966 govts. Ah, my brother, leave the Nkrumah fables to the gullible. You are far too sophisticated for it. cheers

  15. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was going to the Harlem churches at the same time Nkrumah was there.It was his time in Harlem that convinced him he must return to Germany and join the conspiracy against Hitler. Those Harlem churches of the 1920s and 1930s spawned some of the world’s greatest leaders.

  16. This is a distinctive bouillabaisse of candid concerns. It’s part of the struggle for the soul of a nation we all deeply love! In its warm embrace, the moment should always be an opportunity to make it our lyceum, our Chautauqua.

  17. Obviously I do not feel this is about dichotomies or the lack thereof. Morpheus seems to be tackling an important issue in Ghanaian politics even today. The penchant for one Human Being, or Group of Human Beings wanting to laud him/her/themselves over everyone in the name of “I want to be President of Ghana”, at all costs, including but not limited to subterfuge, “Ya ti yen hu”, “All die be die”, and cronyism is put in its correct historical perspective here. I can beat about the bush, but this is no donnybrook. Nkrumah stands morally, ethically and intellectually superior to those other two nodding sycophants in our difficult history.

      • Kwame Kyei-baffour what about Danquah’s CIA connections according to Mahoney’s book? He was recieiving some form of stipend/payments and when they ceased he went to the US embassy herein Ghana to inquire as to why.

  18. A fairly well written and balanced article. Even Jesus Christ who made miracles was hated, hounded and finally crucified. John 10:34 recounts how some wanted to throw him over a cliff because he said he was the son of God and it reads ” Is it not written in your laws that I said you are Gods?” All great leaders have their supporters and detractors but the facts do not lie.

  19. I am writing a novel, hopefully to be made into a feature film about Nkrumah’s last year in office. I would love some help with whatever information you have to share about the man, Morpheus.
    I have read a few books on him and there is no doubt in my mind that the man was pure of heart but just a man, none the less, so he made mistakes but he truly was the best thing to happen to Ghana and had he finished his project, Africa would be a super power by now.

  20. Arguably de Danquah/Busia tradition and Nkrumah all failed Ghana bt Nkrumah was worst off bcus he had all de opportunity to turn de fortunes of our dear ctry Ghana around bt he did little. De institutional foundations he built was too weak to carry us on

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here