A park had the name ‘Kwame Nkrumah Memorial Park’ in Suyani for sometime until recently when the name was changed to ‘Jubilee Park’. Lately, a statute of Dr. Abrefa Busia has been erected in the Park. Both the name change and statute erection fairly prompt the question: why? What good did the people behind the name change and statute erection expect to come to the people of Ghana? I think an answer to this is warranted. When Abena Pokua wrote her article, “Political Infamy: What is Busia doing at Nkrumah Park?”, (See article), she did not know of any good reasons behind the name change and Busia’s statute in the Park. She wrote: “None, as far as I know”. Whether she asked and did not receive an answer/explanation, or didn’t ask at all, we cannot tell. And we cannot be certain whether “None, as far as I know” meant she had explanations but didn’t find them good or she did not know of any explanations offered.. If explanations were offered, she could have done us favour giving reasons they are not good enough. If she didn’t ask for explanations, then she served us what she thinks about the whole thing without vital ingredients to guide her thinking – explanations about the good that was to come from the name change and erection of Busia’s statute in the Park. Nevertheless, she suspected foul play. “Thus we get the impression that the NPP is attempting to rewrite the political history of Ghana, in a way that gives the Busia-Dankwa tradition what it lacks: a monumental presence in Ghana’s political history.” A monumental presence in Ghana’s political history. But the NPP and their Busia-Dankwa tradition have not lacked monumental presence in Ghana’s political history. From the Big Six, via academic references, to the Dankwa Circle, long-lasting monuments of the Dankwa-Busia tradition, an eye cannot miss. She must be certainly aware of the many monumental references to the Dankwah-Busia tradition, and so what she probably intended to say was the lack of monumental presence of the Dankwah-Busia tradition in Brong Ahafo’s political history. But is it true the Dankwa-Busia tradition lacks monumental presence in the political history of the Brong Ahafo? Could there be a better monumental presence the Dankwa-Busia tradition could have in Brong Ahafo than that the very philosophy (one of freedom and self-reliance) upon which the good people of Brong-Ahafo have made historical achievements and established their culture, bears not non-local names such as socialism/communism, capitalism, but Dankwa-Busia. Dr. Abrefa Busia was a son of the Brong Ahafo people. Nomenclature (names) of public places, to Abena, should reflect the ‘monumental presence in the political history of a people’. She felt the previous name of the Park, ‘Kwame Nkrumah Memorial Park’, was appropriate and reflected the monumental presence of Nkrumah and his socialist tradition in the political history of Brong Ahafo. What qualifies a political tradition to have monumental presence in the political history of the Brong Ahafo people? Abena gave us an idea. “’Kwame Nkrumah Memorial Park’ symbolically reflects the monumental contribution of Kwame Nkrumah to the social and economic emancipation and identity of the Bono people.” Contributions to the social and economic emancipation and identity of the Bono people. By the way, I’m half Bono from Berekum. It is clear she did not follow her advice to refrain from ‘tribalcentricism’ – in this case, looking at Brong Ahafo primarily from the perspective of Bono culture/history. But the core of her issues is important, namely, nomenclature of local public places should reflect contributions to the social and economic emancipation and identity of the people. Calling the Park ‘Jubilee Park’ and erecting Busia’s statute in the Park was wrong and unmerited, according to Abena. She asked: “What does ‘jubilee’ mean for the Bono people?” And she would have loved to ask what contributions Busia or the Dankwa-Busia tradition has made to the social and economic emancipation and identity of the people of Brong Ahafo. It appears clear why the name ‘Jubilee Park’ was chosen. Ghana just celebrated her 50th anniversary! Somehow, to Abena, implicitly, the attainment of independence of Ghana and its Golden Jubilee recognition does not reflect a contribution to the social and economic emancipation and identity of the people of Bono. So ‘Jubilee’ can’t replace ‘Kwame Nkrumah’. Ironically, ‘Jubilee’ reflects the very permanent achievements of Nkrumah in the struggle for Ghana’s independence. Surely, this counts for a lot for the good people of Bono. But what has Busia’s statute got to do with the Park? What contributions have he and the Dankwa-Busia tradition made to the social and economic emancipation and identity of the people of Bono? Erecting that statue, according to Abena, amounted to distorting historical facts, creating the false impression that Busia and his tradition made contributions to the social and economic emancipation and identity of the people of Brong Ahafo. She explained that Kwame Nkrumah, although under pressure from some Bono chiefs, facilitated the creation of the Brong Ahafo region, and this speaks of his monumental contributions to the social and political emancipation and identity of the Bono people. The implication here is that, until the creation of the Brong Ahafo region, the Bonos did not have the same political rights as Ashantis and were, by identity, indistinguishable from Ashantis in the Ashanti confederacy. Somehow, Bonos were slaves in the Ashanti Confederacy and the Akumfi Ameyaw-led secession struggles in 1948 were to lead to emancipation, freedom and identity for the Bono people. I am certain the above is an inaccurate understanding of the political history of the Bono people. Most Bono states constituted the Western Province of Ashanti under British colonial rule from 1896. This was for the administrative conveniences of the British colonial powers, and not the outcome of supposed slavish scheming by the Ashanti King. Bono states in this period were under the protection of the British colonial administration, Ashanti having lost much of its threatening power. By 1918, the only serious problem for being a province of Ashanti was interference by Kumasi chiefs in some Bono chieftaincy affairs. The Provincial Record Book reports that the Colonial Governor refused to recognize any claim of the Kumasi chiefs to almost all Bono lands. This was how reduced the Ashanti influence was in Bonoland that during the Yaa Asantewaa War 1900-01, many Bono chiefs freely chose the side of the British Government of the Gold Coast, while others stayed neutral. This couldn’t be a situation in which Bonos were under the yoke of slavish conditions imposed by Ashanti, requiring heroic emancipation of the Bono people. Bono Ahafo, as Western Province of Ashanti, was made and remained just a colonial administrative portion of Ashanti. Ashanti did not have extensive control of the internal affairs of the Bono people. Yes, the British restored the Ashanti Confederacy in 1935, but they had already set up an administrative system that had wiped out the interference of the Kumasi chiefs in Bono Ahafo internal affairs. According to Kwame Arhin, referring to the confirmation of Ahafo as a Division at the restoration of the Ashanti Confederacy in 1935, “The restoration did not disrupt political arrangements within the Division but it became a charter for reviving the old economic claims of the [1] Ashantihene, [2] the owner by conquest of the virgin forest, and of [3] the caretakers, Ahwesofoo…”. The restoration could open the Pandora box to obscene chieftaincy disputes over lands. As a result, several Bono and Ahafo states only saw the restoration as threatening their already attained independence from Ashanti interference mainly in their chieftaincy affairs. This is where Nana Akumfi Ameyaw III and Kwame Nkrumah come in. What Nana Akumfi Ameyaw III started was secession from Ashanti confederacy to stop any possibility of interference from chiefs in Kumasi. Abena in her article made us believe it was a Bono struggle for emancipation from some kind of economic and social slavery in Ashanti confederacy. Nothing could be closer to the untruth. In fact the main aim of the Brong Kyempem Federation was the creation of a separate traditional council from the Ashanti one, and the creation of the Brong Ahafo region was partly to achieve this goal. In March 1955, the Bono issue before the National Assembly was the possibility of setting up a Brong Kyempem Council to fulfil the desire of the Brongs for the establishment of a development committee for their area, and a promise to examine the case made for the establishment of two administrative regions for Ashanti. It is clear that under colonial rule, the Bono people did not endure any kind of unequal social and economic rights in the Ashanti Confederacy. The creation of Brong Ahafo region, which Nkrumah facilitated, was for administrative purposes and not some special social and economic emancipation and identity of the Bono people. Sure, the Brong Ahafo region is diverse in its ethnic composition; any suggestion of the unique identity of the Bono people, tied to the creation of the new region is disingenuous and does not recognise the diversity of the region and independence of Bono people even when as part of the Ashanti Confederacy. It seems Nkrumah’s contribution to the economic and social emancipation of the Bono people must be explained from something else other than the creation of the new region. So, we are back to the sorts of contribution that can make one have a monumental presence in the political history of a people. This is broad, however, we can look up to individuals, among other things, such as Nkrumah, J.B. Dankwa, the Big Six, Kofi Abrefa Busia, John Mensah Sarbah, JJ Rawlings and many more faceless hard-working Ghanaians as having this presence. I’m sure the good people of Bono appreciate the tremendous contributions many Ghanaians, especially Busia, have made. They understand every little helps, and it is important not to waste time on petty issues such as who did more and who did less. Kofi Abrefa has made his mark on the political history of the Bono people and Ghanaians, from his humble role as a district commissioner, Member of Parliament for Wenchi, leader of political parties, Prime Minister of Ghana, to his extensive writings on liberal economy and democratic freedoms. I can understand why his statute could be mounted in our Jubilee Park or Nkrumah Memorial Park. Nkrumah is not the enemy of Busia, vice versa, and so are their followers to be. They offered competing paths to the same goal – freedom and prosperity for the people of Ghana. Perhaps Busia’s statute besides Nkrumah’s in Rawlings Park is overdue. All of them are great people of our land and did their best. It is not our place to divide ourselves with their tremendous legacies. Credit: Eric Gyamfi, [Email: banksider@hotmail.com]