This Is Our Land: Land,Policy,Resistance,and Everyday Life in Colonial Southern Ghana,1894–7

Introduction

Among the Akan, the largest ethnic group of Southern Ghana, land was not an exclusively economic and political entity. It was also a cultural and religious resource. However, its essential elements, like other African cultural practices and institutions, were fluid and dynamic. Generally, the Akan viewed land as communal property, and the right to occupy, farm, or develop a particular plot derived from membership in a particular society (Kojo Idun and Nana Adjoa Panyin, 2009, personal communication). Types of land ownership and concomitant rights were determined along family, Ebusua (clan), and stool (royal) lines. Communal, Ebusua, and family ownership of land had internal systems and arrangements to ensure equity and justice. Stool lands were, in indigenous political and economic wisdom, made available to enhance the upkeep of kings, chiefs, and queen-mothers to accentuate their power, authority, and dignity (Addo-Fenning, 1997: 143).

These types of land ownership were regulated by indigenous authorities, whose powers changed through a strain of colonial and post-colonial administrative interventions (Kojo Idun and Nana Adjoa Panyin, 2009, personal communication). Furthermore, as a result of population pressure, development of a monetary economy, and the ever-increasing built environment, individual land ownership with its attendant problems such as outright sales became rampant (Coquery-Vidrovitch, 1991: 1; see also Berry 1993, 2001). Yet one aspect of the history of land dealing in Southern Ghana that seemed to remain a constant factor was dispute. With time, the nature of land disputes experienced amazing degrees of sophistication.

The tendency of land ownership and control to generate conflicts had deep roots. The colonial authorities in Southern Ghana were not spared this trouble when they attempted to implement economic and political control of land as part of the larger scheme of empire building. This was because they wanted to support foreign enterprise in the economy of colonial Ghana, particularly the gold mining industry. According to the colonial government, Southern Ghana, like most African countries, had auriferous lands with considerable natural resources (Hymer, 1969: 4). What was lacking was capital and enterprise which could be obtained from foreign entrepreneurs. For instance, Secretary of State Joseph Chamberlain noted that colonies were underdeveloped land estates that could never be developed without imperial assistance. ¹

In the late 19th century the colonial government sought to remove obstacles to fruitful exchanges between Southern Ghana and England. It hoped to accomplish this by the provision of infrastructure and basic services, as well as creating a favorable atmosphere for foreign private investment. This approach led the government to overemphasize foreign capital to the neglect of internal and indigenous enterprise (Hymer, 1969: 4). Much was done to encourage foreign investment in the gold industry. The industry thrived on land concessions and that was where the trouble originated. Southern Ghana had a long history as a gold producer (Arhin, 1995: 1). Gold mining was a formidable sector of its indigenous economy from ancient times. Southern Ghana contributed to the gold pool that supplied the trans-Saharan caravan trade network. The colonial government assumed that, because indigenous methods were inefficient for working deep mines, modern machinery was necessary to develop the gold industry. It was the contention of the government that gold was in great demand on the world market, but it required mechanization and capital that could only be supplied by foreign private investors (Hymer, 1969: 4).

The colonial government survey and geological reports forecast that £40 million worth of gold could be extracted over 10 years. All of these projections emphasized government assistance as indispensable in supporting mechanical gold mining in colonial Southern Ghana. In the early 1870s and 1880s, initial attempts by Europeans to establish gold mining industries in Southern Ghana were frustrated by several factors, particularly scanty infrastructure. It was difficult and expensive to transport machinery by head loads, which was the only way to transport material due to the lack of an extensive railroad system. The industry became successful only after the construction of railroads made cheap transportation possible later in the 20th century. The government also assisted Europeans who had the requisite capital to obtain labor, though not to the extent as in other parts of colonial Africa. Most colonial governments, by policy and action, considered it essential to interfere in the labor market to ensure an adequate supply for the export sector of the economy (Berg, 1961: 468). The administration began with the usual excuse that one of the most serious problems in Southern Ghana was dearth of labor to which the character of the inhabitants largely contributed. ² But it did not take strong measures to increase the labor supply. ³

When the simultaneous demands for labor in gold mining, railroad construction, and cocoa production caused a shortage of labor in Southern Ghana, the colonial government established a transport department with the aim of alleviating conditions under which exorbitant rates had for some time been demanded by carriers. ⁴ The government made efforts to import Asian laborers, but only a small number even arrived. Finally, the administration helped gold mining industry recruitment by arranging meetings between them and chiefs. Again, the government did not use coercion but rather benign pressure (Hymer, 1969: 10). The colonial government, however, could not do much in this direction because it had limited political control of the colony and therefore lacked power to control the labor market. Moreover, it was unable to help European companies by seizing mineral rights. These were worked out through private negotiations between prospectors and local chiefs, who were custodians of the lands. ⁵ It was in the effort to be part of this concession-granting process that the colonial government introduced the Crown Lands Bill.

The Crown Lands Bill of 1894 and ‘Waste Lands’

In essence, the bill was designed to deprive kings, chiefs, queen-mothers, and headmen of the right to make grants and repose all such powers over concessions of ‘waste lands’ (unoccupied or uncultivated lands) and forests solely in the British crown (Kimble, 1963: 342). The colonial government also hoped that the bill would put an end to protracted land disputes as a result of rival kings, chiefs, or queen-mothers conceding mining and timber rights over vast and ill-defined tracts of land without strict regulations. Again, the new land regime would define concessions accurately and require concessionaires to work them within reasonable time frames.

The government justified the proposed bill by indicating that, given the rate at which European mining companies (and some timber companies) were securing land concessions from kings, chiefs, and queen-mothers of Southern Ghana, it was necessary to inject some degree of order and sanity (Hymer, 1969: 11). Long before 1894, when the colonial government attempted to pass the Crown Lands Bill, Governor Sanford Freeling, a meticulous individual, had warned the colonial office in London about his fears should the British attempt to claim ownership of Southern Ghana lands. Apparently Freeling had grown in his knowledge of Southern Ghana indigenous customs. He was somewhat cautious about the designation of mechanical gold mining in the colony as a new field for European enterprise.

Freeling showed an excellent understanding of Southern Ghana custom and usage with respect to land. Even though he was hardly exhaustive on the subject, he did give a good account of himself as an objective colonial officer. In April 1877, Secretary of State Henry Howard Herbert, the 4th Lord Carnarvon, inquired whether, in the changed circumstances of the Protectorate, some encouragement might not be given to the mining enterprise. ⁶ Freeling warned that there was the need for great caution in promoting the mining enterprise. According to him, the influx of Europeans into Southern Ghana for the purposes of mining was going to necessitate some form of land takeover by the colonial government if the industry was to be successful. Freeling noted that, in indigenous practice, land was inalienable and there was no subject that gave rise to disputes with so much acrimony as disagreements over land. He further explained:

The rightful owners of the soil are the Kings and Chiefs and their people, and not the colonial government. I consider that her Majesty’s Government has no territorial rights over the districts. The limits of British territory are even indefinite, and had better remain so… The right of jurisdiction does not rest upon any claim of sovereignty. ⁷

Freeling’s insight was a bright spot in the history of British colonial rule in Southern Ghana. He was aware of the nature of British authority in the colony. The colonial administration had no rights to land because of the kindness and friendship of the kings, chiefs, queen-mothers, and their people. What was crucial was the fact that Akans believed there was nothing like ‘waste land.’ Land was either the property of the stool occupant or was held in trust for the people and the departed ancestors by chiefs and headmen. Chiefs could allow others to occupy the land, following payment of a portion of the yield in gold or agricultural produce. The occupier obtained no fixed tenure, and duration of his occupancy was entirely up to the owner. Land was always associated with the stool, the occupant of which could do as he or she willed during their tenure. Upon their death or removal, the land reverted to the stool and was inherited by the successor. Freeling raised certain pertinent issues. Government takeover of land in support of the gold industry would mean protecting the mines, securing the rights of ground, and provision of water for working the mines. He also pointed to the need for facilities and protection of gold mines against the caprice of aggrieved indigenous authorities.

In spite of these views the British government made serious attempts to get the bill through the Legislative Council, the colonial assembly of elected representatives. In the 1890s, official opinion strongly favored vesting all ‘waste lands’ in the crown. The governor under whose watch the implementation started was William Edward Maxwell, a typical empire builder in the service of her Majesty’s Government.

Government discussions and plans got to the Southern Ghana community in the form of rumors. Given the indigenous conception of land, the people took those rumors seriously, and so too, the preparations to resist the colonial government. In Akan social philosophy the idea of resistance was common. It was expressed in songs, proverbs, and everyday language. Indigenous songs and poems of Cape Coast, for instance, provide a smattering of confrontation and resistance. These amounted to cryptic expressions of the town’s strength, nature, and character. Its inhabitants were quick to seek redress, and when a push became a shove, they did not hesitate to retaliate. In part, these songs and poems were powerful statements of origin, history, and the sacred. They were a challenge to the individual in particular, and the nation in general, to uphold and stand in defense of the beliefs expressed therein. When played on the drum, their sacred elements were invoked. In a typical war situation or conflict, men and women were charged to acquit themselves in ways that reflected the tenets of the songs and poems. This stance was a sure recipe for conflict and resistance.

As soon as the bill was introduced in the Legislative Council, it sparked an immediate resistance from the people. The intellectuals formed an important part of these protests. James Hutton Brew was a solicitor, editor of the Western Echo newspaper, and the assistant secretary of the Fanti Confederation. He was quick to remind the British government about the unique nature of its relationship with Southern Ghana. In a letter to Secretary of State George Frederick Robinson, Marquis of Ripon, Brew wrote:

The Gold Coast has not been acquired either by conquest, cession, or treaty; and although the British Government has exercised certain powers and jurisdictions, it possesses no inherent legal right to deprive us of our lands, as is contemplated in the proposed Bill. ⁸

References to British land dealings in other places were not enough to let the colonial administration appreciate the people’s seriousness. Brew indicated that the people of Southern Ghana were willing and able to manage their land. They did not stand in need of British supervision, direction, or legislation. He pointed out that the people had not proved themselves incapable of administering their land. They could handle their clients, and collect rents due to them. Brew referred to Governor William Branford Griffith’s remark to the effect that Southern Ghana became the property of the government by right of conquest. ⁹ According to him this was an absurd statement and should not have been made in earnest by a high officer of the caliber of Governor Griffith. The jurisdiction, rights, and power hitherto exercised by the government over the Protectorate had been by usage and sufferance and not by conquest.

Resistance to the bill was not limited to intellectuals. The newspapers, mostly published in Cape Coast, were inundated with reports of meetings, strategies, and petitions. The papers also featured articles, letters, and editorials on the bill. The issue was so pertinent to everyday life that, on the one hand, the Gold Coast Methodist Times, an originally missionary newspaper edited by the Reverend Attoh Ahuma, decided not to restrict its publication to religious matters because of the fiery indignation likely to devour the colony on account of the bill entitled Crown Land Ordinance (Gold Coast Methodist Times, 1895). The Gold Coast Chronicle, on the other hand, reported that if the bill was pushed in the form as it stood, the people of Southern Ghana would leave the colony en masse. These and other newspapers charged that the bill, which sought to vest ‘waste’ and forest lands in the British crown, claimed them for the use of the government. It had failed to identify with the indigenous people and therefore the intent of the bill was suspicious. The newspapers argued that the colonial authorities appeared be concealing their real motives (Gold Coast Chronicle, 1895; Gold Coast Methodist Times, 1895).

Resistance to the bill was far more widespread than the colonial government had imagined or anticipated. Indigenous political authorities in the central and western parts of Southern Ghana also resisted the land bill. For instance, the chiefs, queen-mothers, and people of Elmina sent delegations to the governor in Accra with official protests declining to consent to the bill. The king of Abura, with his chiefs, headmen, and councilors, went to Cape Coast to confer with the district commissioner on the issue. According to him, other colonial governors who lived with his ancestors for a long time never made any such propositions with respect to land. ¹⁰

In their petition to the secretary of state for colonies in London, the chiefs, queen-mothers, and people of Cape Coast referred to the details of the Bond of 1844 and the 1874 Proclamation that defined colonial jurisdiction in Southern Ghana. Neither of those historic documents explicitly stated that the land belonged to the Queen of England. They had been told repeatedly that the Queen did not have any claim to land outside the walls of the forts and castles. The chiefs, queen-mothers, and people of Cape Coast averred that, with the boom in the gold industry and the concomitant appreciation in the value of land, the bill was going to deprive them of their property for the sole benefit of the colonial government. The indigenous people had no hand in its creation; neither did they have any control over its policy. The chiefs and queen-mothers of Tarkwa and Heman sent petitions intent on resisting the land bill. For instance, the chief and headmen of Heman indicated that, to the best of his understanding, the bill would orchestrate his ousting and that of his men and their families from the land of their ancestors. That would amount to a total disruption of their everyday life. Nearly all the petitioners argued variously that the Public Lands Ordinance of 1876 gave the colonial government adequate allowance to acquire land for legitimate public uses. To this end, a new legislation was unnecessary. They also reiterated that all lands had owners.

Governor Maxwell took a strong stance against the barrage of resistance. He held the view that chiefs who enjoyed British protection would have to give up some of their rights over land as a price for the benefits. They should not receive everything and yield nothing. According to him, the very theory of a Protectorate seems to imply something in the nature of sovereign rights in the protecting power. He was resentful of the fact that the colonial government had made sacrifices in freeing the Protectorate from Ashanti invasion (1873–4) and that ‘petty chiefs’ were going to be the sole beneficiaries of the claims to full sovereign rights over forests, ‘waste lands,’ and minerals. Maxwell was oblivious to the fact that the British used armies of men drawn from Southern Ghana. He had no doubt that it was right and politic to restrict the powers of kings, chiefs, and queen-mothers to grant concessions to European mining prospectors. The colonial government would have to be privy to any concession deal.

The governor was also frustrated by what he called the ridiculous position in which the colonial government was put by having to go through a tedious legal process with the payment of compensation. Maxwell was obviously not happy that he, as governor, could not get land without applying to indigenous authorities for permission. On the whole, however, the colonial administration conceded that the petitioners had stated their cases convincingly.

The Crown Lands Bill of 1897 and ‘Public Land’

The administration unrelenting in its desire to have control of land in Southern Ghana took some account of the resolute resistance and modified the controversial bill. The Lands Bill of 1897 was different in letter but the same in spirit. It was sent to the Legislative Council in March 1897. Among other things, it stated that the intent of vesting ‘waste land’ in the Queen had been abandoned. The crown would have rights of administration but not ownership. The bill indicated that ‘public land’ was to be administered by the colonial government for the general good. ¹¹ Chiefs were still to have all reasonable authority, but the colonial government would ensure that private rights were not improvidently created on so-called public land. The right of the people of Southern Ghana to ownership of land was no longer automatically recognized. Occupiers of land would be entitled only to settler rights, which could be transformed into an absolute right on application to the governor, who would issue a grant of land certificate. The new land bill gave the government the right to declare that a piece of land had no owner and then authorize its occupation. The people of Southern Ghana could make land grants and concessions to other Africans, but not to Europeans without express permission of the governor.

Intellectuals in Southern Ghana realized that both bills were, in light of the wide powers given to the governor, one and the same. They would not be tricked by the superficial offers made to the inhabitants in the new bill. Newspaper editors and contributors were among the first to resist the new bill. They were unanimous in stating that it still placed far too much power in the hands of the governor (Gold Coast Chronicle, 1897; Gold Coast Methodist Times, 1897a). With screaming editorials, the Gold Coast Methodist Times and the Gold Coast Chronicle, for instance, called upon the people of Southern Ghana to give the new bill unremitting resistance. Back in the Legislative Council representatives similarly resisted the bill to the chagrin of Maxwell.

Charles J Bannerman, a lawyer, was the lead counsel in resistance to the bill. He reiterated that kings, chiefs, and queen-mothers had immemorial rights to their land, and were therefore well within their power and authority to do as they pleased with it. He observed that the Supreme Court had always recognized the right of the kings, chiefs, and queen-mothers to grant land to whomsoever they wished. The new bill sought to abrogate that, and this amounted to a violation of government trust. Bannerman indicated to Maxwell that, far from the old bill being abandoned, the ordinance of 1897 was the same in form – that is it was another way of getting into the room through the window when the door was closed.

Maxwell was his characteristic self in defense of the new bill. He insisted that it was not taking away the rights of kings, chiefs, and queen-mothers. It only made a distinction between public and private rights. He averred that stool lands were public lands that ought to be administered for the benefit of the people. ¹² The bill only gave the governor concurrent rights with the kings, chiefs, and queen-mothers. The indigenous authorities still had their power to authorize the occupation of public lands as a site of habitation or for permanent agricultural purposes. It was only in dealing with European concessionaires that their rights had been curtailed. Kings, chiefs, and queen-mothers had no right to grant foreigners private rights in public lands without the written consent of the governor.

Maxwell insisted that it was ridiculous that the practice of shifting cultivation, which resulted in land being left to fallow for long, could be used as a claim to ownership. He argued that it would be monstrous if it was sanctioned by law. Bannerman countered that shifting cultivation was an established practice of laying claim to land. Various pieces of land belonging to different owners might be found lying idle. Owners might be working on a couple of plots in different locations. In view of this ‘idle lands’ were actually not vacant but properly owned.

The Land Bill of 1897 added to the worsening relations between the colonial administration and the people of Cape Coast. It offered an opportunity for them to ‘payback’ for the many ways in which, by their estimation, they had been denied their rights. To this end, the bill led to the formation of the Aborigines’ Rights Protection Society. The intellectuals of Cape Coast managed to get a copy of the bill after it was laid before the Legislative Council. This caused general agitation and resistance. A meeting was called to start a resistance movement against the Land Bill of 1897. Interestingly, other intellectuals began similar movements all over Southern Ghana. They decided to affiliate the various groups to the one that had been formed in Cape Coast. This single large organization became known as the Gold Coast Aborigines’ Rights Protection Society. Members set themselves the task of helping the indigenous population of Southern Ghana understand the import of the actions of the colonial government. This was the first movement in the colony that mimicked a national organization. Their first public statement was critical of the colonial government:

Whereas in former times measures intended by the Government were brought before a meeting of Kings and Chiefs has been set aside and superseded by the Gazette. A very large majority of the population is unable to read, and whereas even the greater of those able to read cannot comprehend the meaning of the Bill … the Society has been formed to discuss the Bills … that every person may understand the same. (Gold Coast Express, 1897; Gold Coast Independent, 1897)

The society pointed out that, contrary to earlier practices that had undergirded the cordial relationship between the people of Southern Ghana and the colonial government, the latter was introducing an infamous bill. This made the people suspicious of the motives of the colonial government. The essence of the society’s mission statement raises critical questions. Did it amount to a usurpation of the roles of kings, chiefs, queen-mothers, and other leaders of the indigenous political authorities? Was the mission statement an attempt by the intellectuals to impose themselves on the colonial establishment as the rightful representatives of the people by taking undue advantage of their Western education? To what extent could personal interests be cast as the public good?

The colonial administration had long been suspicious of the Western-educated elite and refused to deal with them. In 1866 Governor Edward Conran, who was concerned about the growing influence of the intellectuals, referred to them as the ‘so-called’ scholars and petty ‘native’ lawyers who clung like leeches to ignorant kings and chiefs. ¹³ He claimed that he saw a mixture of aptitude and foolishness in a couple of them. For example, he referred to Charles Bannerman as a native advocate possessing much talent but totally devoid of principle. Conran also suspected the intellectuals as the real sponsors of resistance in Cape Coast. He insisted that the British government would never agree to hand over power to a few designing, needy, half-educated natives. Sir William Blackhall, the governor-in-chief of Sierra Leone, expressing his views on the intellectuals, stated that they were the real culprits in all the difficulties, including resistance, which the British had to deal with in the colony. They were the artful men who had always made some chiefs a source of constant danger. ¹⁴ Others saw the intellectuals as political schemers, who attempted to use the indigenous political establishment to take advantage of the British policy of indirect rule (see Gocking, 1981: 102). Contrary to such claims, there was overwhelming evidence of a long history of cooperation between the intellectuals and the indigenous political authorities, at least in Cape Coast. This relationship stood out in comparison to others elsewhere in Southern Ghana.

In Cape Coast some market women and fishmongers, who were infuriated by the reluctance of the colonial government to heed the numerous petitions regarding its land policy, took matters a step further. When Maxwell arrived at Cape Coast on a routine tour, they held furious demonstrations. The women at the head of one such demonstration displayed a red banner that signified their anger and seriousness. It had the inscription ‘We protest against the Land Bill!’ They were followed by a long procession of women chanting dirges and hymns. Maxwell later dismissed the demonstrators as ‘a noisy crowd of women and boys’ who had displayed a banner bearing words of resistance. He suspected that they had been employed by men who were ‘too prudent to risk anything’ themselves. ¹⁵

Maxwell accused the intellectuals of pursuing private business interests in their resistance to the Lands Bill of 1897. ¹⁶ According to him, most of them were land speculators who felt threatened by the idea of sanctions that would render concessions invalid. JW Sey, the president of the Aborigines’ Rights Protection Society, and JH Brew, the most outspoken critics of the bill, were connected with the Gold Coast Native Concessions Purchasing Company of 1882. JP Brown, the vice president of the society, was among those who helped to negotiate the lucrative Adansi concession, which later became the property of the Ashanti Goldfields Corporation. Irrespective of whatever these men got for their roles in the deals, there was no reason to suppose that they gained as much from such transactions as European concessionaires. These intellectuals were well within their rights in resisting the bill on behalf of the public interest. Furthermore, the kings, chiefs, and queen-mothers preferred to have land dealings negotiated on their behalf by the intellectuals, rather than have them handled by the colonial administration which was seen as remote and insensitive. The governor was chastised by the Southern Ghana press for his personal aspersions against the intellectuals. Maxwell made derogatory statements about intellectuals and denounced them by name as veritable firebrands in the popular movement against the infamous lands bill.

The society remained undaunted by the official aspersions and innuendoes. It continued to provide a central stage for the scattered resistance in Southern Ghana against the land bill. The executive members did this first by using private contacts with prominent kings, chiefs, and queen-mothers. They also made use of newspaper publications. The Gold Coast Methodist Times continued the campaign and defied rumors of press censorship. It taunted and warned the colonial government. The newspaper advised the people not to relent in their efforts to destroy the pernicious bill. The society relied heavily on the Gold Coast Methodist Times until it was able to publish its own newspaper, the Gold Coast Aborigines. Before the new land bill went for a second reading in the Legislative Council, the resistance grew to unprecedented levels. At the second reading John Mensah Sarbah, a lawyer, was lead counsel for Southern Ghana kings, chiefs, and queen-mothers. He pointed out that there was no significant difference between the bills of 1894 and 1897:

This Land Bill is an elaborate and expanded form of the Crown Lands Bill of 1894. That Bill refers only to what is termed waste and forest lands whereas this Bill refers to the whole land of this country, depriving the aborigines of their rights in the soil of their native land. (Gold Coast Methodist Times, 1897b)

In making his arguments, he referred to the 1895 report on land tenure, and also reiterated that every plot of land in Southern Ghana had an owner, irrespective of the government’s vague description of some as ‘waste’. Family land remained the property of the family at all times and in all conditions, whether cultivated or not. According to Mensah Sarbah, the only condition under which a family might lose its land was in the unlikely event of the failure of its successors to maintain it properly. In that case the land would fall back into the common property of the village, community, or town, which was subject to the control of kings, chiefs, queen-mothers, headmen, and elders. He pointed out that the Southern Ghana indigenous political authorities were unanimous in their resistance to a bill that sought to change their inalienable natural rights of absolute ownership into that of helpless holders and settlers. Furthermore, the bill’s removal of the generally-accepted distinction between individual, family, and communal lands would tamper with the time-honored control hitherto exercised by the indigenous political authorities over families, villages, and towns.

Consequently, Mensah Sarbah argued that, not only would the bonds of society be snapped, but family ties could be broken and family relationships destroyed. That in effect would have serious implications for everyday life. It was bound to be disruptive to the society in general. He briefed the council on some of the issues as well as the unforeseen consequences of the bill. For instance, the fact that the bill sought to forfeit an owner’s right after three years of nonuse of his or her property would bring untold hardship to clerks, artisans, and traders. People in this category, by the nature of their jobs, had to travel over long distance – sometimes for years (Mensah Sarbah, 1968: 120). Absences from their villages, extending into the stipulated three years, would cause them to lose their title to individual and family lands. He also questioned the failure of the bill to recognize the practice of shifting cultivation as a title or claim to land ownership.

Mensah Sarbah pointed out that land as a religious resource had deep implications for the Akan. It connected them to the ancestors in many ways. It was part of the heritage bequeathed them by their departed and revered forebears. This in essence elevated land to an equally-revered entity (1968: 123). The ancestors acquired their land allocations through first settlement, war, and the shedding of blood. That in turn enjoined the living to treat land as they would any other family heirloom. In this case, any alienation of land was bound to incur the displeasure and curse of the ancestors, who were seen as vindictive, like most spirits (Gold Coast Methodist Times, 1897a). Furthermore, the land was a sacred resting place of the ancestors. This also signified its sacredness. The Akan practice of libation (the pouring of drink – water and alcohol – on the ground) was their main means of communicating with the ancestors. The ancestors in their beneficence also gave treasure troves through deposits on the land. To this end, the Akan, like most peoples of Southern Ghana, had cogent reasons not to relent in their bid to prevent the colonial government from going ahead with its Crown Lands Bill.

Various attempts by Governor Maxwell and the colonial administration to rework and get the bill passed provided additional fuel to its resistance. When the governor died at sea, in 1898, on his way to London, the Southern Ghana press shed no tear for him. One paper referred to Maxwell’s ability, energy, and advanced views in pushing ‘the grasping tyrannical land grabbing and rotten policy marked out for him’ (Gold Coast Methodist Times, 1898). He pursued that goal with a cold, unsympathetic spirit and contempt for natives. ¹⁷ The kings, chiefs, and queen-mothers of the Fanti people, at a meeting in Cape Coast, also sent a telegram on the occasion of Maxwell’s death to Queen Victoria asking for a new governor who would be sympathetic and careful to understand their cause. ¹⁸ They had no such luck. Maxwell was succeeded by FM Hodgson, who was equally enthusiastic to get the bill passed.

In his assessment of the situation, Governor Hodgson thought that the indigenous political authorities had resigned to the inevitability of the bill becoming law. He sought to get it quickly through the Legislative Council after the necessary changes before the feeling begun to wane (Kimble, 1963: 345). With the colonial office gradually waking up to the enormity of the resistance to the Lands Bill and the need to critically assess the situation, it took advantage of Maxwell’s death and temporarily stayed the bill’s passing. Because a Southern Ghana delegation was on its way to London to resist the bill, the colonial office elected to be doubly cautious.

The society encouraged kings and chiefs to continue to attend regular meetings in order to sustain the resistance. It advocated for more branches to be opened in other parts of colonial Southern Ghana farther away from Cape Coast so that the government would be compelled to recognize it as the real voice of the nation. It also sought legal advice in London. To this end, Joseph E Casely-Hayford gathered legal and historical evidence for counsels in London. He and others were able to collect more than 30 Parliamentary Reports, Legislative Council Debates, and government Blue Books which were sent to London. ¹⁹ The society eventually managed to raise funds through solicitations and contributions from the kings, chiefs, queen-mothers, and people of Southern Ghana. This was used to pay for the cost of sending the delegation to London. ²⁰ It was made up of three prominent merchants who took along indigenous state swords and the insignia of kings, chiefs, and queen-mothers of Southern Ghana. This was to accentuate their authority as accredited representatives and to emphasize the cultural and religious significance of land.

With the facilitation of the British legal counsel, Secretary of State Joseph Chamberlain granted them audience at the colonial office. ²¹ The delegation argued that the Lands Bill of 1897 was flawed in its entirety because of the argument on which it was based. They reiterated that the official idea of unoccupied lands having no owners was widely contested, but the governor denied them the opportunity to argue their position. The delegation affirmed that all those lands belonged to kings, chiefs, queen-mothers, towns, villages and, in some cases, individuals. Indigenous land ownership and administration was structured in such a way that no one could have them without the express consent and permission of kings, chiefs, and queen-mothers. ²² These arrangements were the basis of everyday life. Any attempt to tamper with them would lead to a total social breakdown. The vast expanses of land were all completely owned, with each and every owner in full knowledge of their boundaries.

The delegation also found fault with the proposition that commissioners appointed by the governor were to have the power over concessions without any specific procedures or regulations. They argued that this was absolutely arbitrary, and that a workable option could be achieved by making the whole procedure judicial and not administrative. ²³ Another important objection concerned a proposition in the bill that everyone who obtained land by land certificate should do so according to English law instead of native law. The delegation insisted that such certificates should be based on indigenous law that was culturally meaningful to the people. They also pointed out that the kings, chiefs, queen-mothers and others had no problem releasing land for public purposes. However, those purposes were defined too loosely in the bill. They demanded that these be limited to a specific list. Moreover, a mere notice in the Government Gazette would not secure the meaningful consent of owners of lands affected by concession procedures. The delegation demanded that there should be appropriate notifications delivered to the kings, chiefs, queen-mothers, families, and individuals by competent interpreters. ²⁴

To the delight of the delegation, Chamberlain could not resist the soundness of their concerns and arguments. He gave them the assurance they were looking for. He promised that native law would remain and prevail with regard to devolution of land. To deflate any idea that the colonial government had been defeated – and to provide a much-needed face-saving gesture – the colonial office used Maxwell’s death as an excuse to kill the bill.

Conclusion

Colonial rule in Southern Ghana and other places in Africa was in the main a project of control. It attempted to regulate everyday life to suit the plans and purposes of the administration. The period 1894–7 was crucial in Southern Ghana because of plans to enhance mechanization of the gold mining industry. This involved actions on the part of the government that conflicted with the people’s perceptions of themselves as masters of their society. Since land was a matter par excellence the people of Southern Ghana drew on their indigenous perceptions of resistance in dealing with the colonial government. Furthermore, because colonialism had unleashed an officious bureaucratic system of correspondence, the ordinary people and their chiefs had to collaborate with their Western-educated compatriots who were also up in arms against the colonial government. This was an effective collaboration that challenges the received notion that Western-educated elite of Africa neglected the uneducated masses. The Land Bills of 1894 and 1897 were going to affect important aspects of everyday life in Southern Ghana. In light of this there was a common interest that enjoined the entire society to be part of the resistance.

While the people of Southern Gold Coast saw land as an important cultural and religious resource, the colonial government saw it as part of the trappings of political and economic power. When the government, as part of its modernization and mechanization of the gold mining sector, started efforts to support foreign private investment in the 19th century, it was bound to suffer resistance from the people of Southern Gold Coast. First, the introduction of the Crown Lands Bill of 1894 sought to designate all unoccupied lands as ‘waste lands.’ Second, the Crown Lands Bill of 1897 rather declared unoccupied lands as ‘public lands.’ The people of the Gold Coast led by the ARPS, based in Cape Coast, saw both bills as one and the same thing. They countered that they got their land from their ancestors who acquired it variously by first settlement, war, and blood. There was nothing like idle land, as every piece had owners who knew its boundaries. Land also connected them with their ancestors – an important basis of everyday life. They resisted through demonstrations, newspaper editorials and the use of delegations that held discussions with officials in the colonial office. The tenacious resistance caused the colonial government to abandon plans to claim lands in Southern Ghana.