Source: Post on Facebook By Abubakari Is-haq Motariga
T(caps) he history of Mole-Dagbon has become a subject of renewed public interest, unfortunately, confusion arises in its submissions. As oral traditions meet today's reinterpretations, and social media amplify selective narratives, the rich and complex heritage of the Dagbon people is increasingly being reshaped in ways that risk distorting its authenticity. This is not merely an academic concern; it touches the core of Dagbon identity, unity, and ancestral pride among the Gbewaa Family.
The story of Dagbon is deeply intertwined with the legacy of Naa Gbewaa, whose descendants; Mamprusi, Dagbamba (Dagomba), Nanumba, and Mossi share a common thread of kinship. Yet, recent claims, particularly on ModernGhana.com by a writer named Salifu Hamza Iddrisu have introduced inconsistencies and misattributions that challenge well-established oral histories and traditional accounts. My article seeks to clarify these misconceptions of that ModernGhana's Article and to restore historical integrity and reaffirm the shared dignity of all who trace their roots to The Great Naa Gbewaa.
The Name "Yooba" to Refer to Dagombas
Going through that article, the writer has consistently referred to Dagombas as “Yooba,” a term that, historically, is only found within Mamprugu to describe Naa Shitobu and his descendants. While the Dagomba in Dagbon have preserved the original ethnonym “Dagbamba” as the applied ethnic identity of their ancestors, the Mamprusi have not only shifted their original name from Dagbamba to Mamprusi but have also coined a new, unauthorized term “Yooba” to refer to the people south of Mamprugu, essentially anglicizing Dagomba from the original “Dagbamba” (see Awendoba, 2006; Iliasu, 1970).
Although this name may have emerged from Mamprugu as a geographic descriptor for their southern neighbors, the Dagbon people, there exists a Mamprusi account of its origin. According to this narrative, Naa Tohagu, upon assuming leadership as heir to Naa Gbewaa, moved the capital from Pusiga to Gambaga. From there, he directed Naa Shitobu to settle in a “forest area” known as “Yoo.” The people who settled there, “ba,” became associated with Yoo, hence “Yoo” + “ba” = “Yooba.”
This interpretation is echoed in the article’s claim that
The formation of Yooba kingdom was not a product of war but of migration driven by farming and expansion of the kingdom. As populations expanded and Shitobu, still bitter from his failed attempt, eventually moved southwards from Gambaga to a village near Diare called Yani Dabari. Those who remained in Gambaga referred to Shitobu and his followers as ‘Yoodima’ or ‘Yooba’… while the indigenous people whom Shitobu and his people met began to call them Dagbamba, the people from Gambaga or Mole Dagbamba.
If one were to accept this narrative as historical fact, it raises fundamental questions about the identity of the indigenous people Shitobu encountered around Diare. However, research has challenged this linear theory, showing that it was not Shitobu and his followers who were Dagbamba. Historical accounts affirm that the people around Diare have always been indigenous Dagbamba, referred to variously as aboriginal Dagbamba, Dagban Sabila, or the Black Dagomba. Thus, rather than Shitobu meeting a different ethnic group, it is more plausible that he encountered aboriginal Dagbamba (refer to Tamakloe, 1931; Staniland, 1975; Mahama, 2003, 2020, 2024; Fusheini, 2014; Motariga, 2024).
The term “Yoo kingdom” is absent from both documented and oral historical archives. It appears to be a modern invention, a phraseology lacking the historical rigor required to validate it. If it were acceptable for anyone to fabricate or misrepresent oral traditions about a people, history itself would lose its relevance.
Moreover, the term “Yooba” is unknown in Dagbon, Nanun, Mossiland, and across Ghana. It should be regarded as a significant fabrication originating from within Mamprugu. Just as Dagbamba may colloquially refer to Gonjas as “Zabagsi,” Asantes as “Kambonsi,” Mamprusis as “Mampriginima” (meaning “Separatists”), or Ewes as “Aligbenima,” these informal labels do not warrant a change in the official names, identities, or histories of those groups.
Rather than attempting to impose a new name, “Yooba” or “Yooba Kingdom,” on the Dagbamba people of Dagbon, one would expect the writer to invest their time in defending the authentic collective identity that has recently been overshadowed by the rebranding of “Mamprusi.”
Historical accounts tell us that the name “Mamprusi” emerged when Naa Banmarigu and his people relocated the old capital from Naa Tohagu’s maternal village, Mamproug in Togo, to Gambaga. Upon arrival, the people of Gambaga began referring to them as “Mamprugudima,” from which the terms Mamprugu and Mamprusi evolved. It is therefore possible that the original identity of the Gambaga people was not Mamprusi before Naa Banmarigu’s arrival. Why not preserve this original identity instead of adopting a newer construction?
Shitobu not founder of Dagbon
In that same article, the writer makes the point that Shitobu is not the founder of Dagbon. This is a most weird and uninformed opinion of conjecture. From both oral and written accounts, Naa Shitobu was the first King after the separation of Naa Tohagu at Gambaga. Naa Shitobu metaphorically became the first “King of the Forest,” that is, Yogutoli lana, a title which Naa Nyagse and all succeeding kings have been referred to with reverence. In fact, the title became less applicable after Naa Titugiri relocated the capital from Yani Dabari to the present Yendi.
Among Dagbon drummers (lungsi), who have been custodians of the history of the rulers of Dagbon, there is a term called “Salaa Gmemanga” to refer to how Naa Shitobu gradually and inadvertently formed Yogu, which was later to be Dagbon. Naa Shitobu bore the title of first Yogutoli lana until his final relocation to Bagali, where he invested his son, Naa Nyagse, as successor of the kingdom. Some oral and written historians are therefore of the opinion that if Naa Shitobu had remained in Gambaga and his son, Naa Nyagse, had expanded the territories to today’s Dagbon, and Shitobu died and was buried in Gambaga with his son, Naa Nyagse, succeeding him from that capital, Gambaga would possibly have been part of the expanded territory.
Prof. Iliasu (1970), a renowned historian and a Mamprusi, noted authoritatively that
Strictly speaking, Nyagse consolidated rather than founded the kingdom of Dagomba; its true founder was Sitobu, the father of Nyagse.
This point is also made by Motariga (2024), Mahama (2020), Staniland (1975), etc. This authorized position is also well grounded in oral narratives of drummers of Dagbon, except if one is a neophyte in interpreting drum chants.
What is also unfounded in the article is the narrative discourse of the chronology of events. The writer sets the dates of Naa Tohugu and Naa Shitobu as 11th or 12th Century, while Naa Nyagse’s as 14th Century, and deducts wrongly that “It is therefore impossible for Naa Nyagsi to have been Shitobu’s direct son.”
Before the 1900s, history of much of Africa, including the Gbewaa States, was not written but preserved in the memory of drummers (lungsi) who originated from Dagbon. Aside from these drummers, there were other categories of griots such as those blowing the flute, the African violin (gooje), among others. All these keepers of the history had very little understanding of what we call chronology and date setting. Because writing of history developed much later in most parts of Africa, and records were in most cases scarce and fragmented, historians and anthropologists have often been faced with the most difficult task of dating precisely. In fact, the most renowned scholars and academics, including Prof. A. A. Iliasu, who was a historian at the Department of History of the University of Ghana, had to note that the dates provided by historians for the emergence of the Mossi Dagomba states are tentative and vary widely. So one may ask, on what basis did the writer arrive at the dates for Naa Tohugu and Naa Shitobu and that of Naa Nyagsi to conclude naively that Nyagsi was rather a grandson of Naa Shitobu? This appears very deceptive, disingenuous, and highly repulsive in the face of true historical writings.
Formation of Dagbon and Mamprugu after Naa Gbewaa
He also made an opinion that “Contrary to false narratives of violent succession or regalia conflict at Pusiga, there was no chieftaincy conflict. Yes, Shitobu attempted challenging Tohugu’s succession, but he failed in his false claim. Both lived under the same kingdom under Tohugu’s kingship, where Tohugu had already established royal authority at Pusiga before relocating the traditional capital at Gambaga. The formation of the Yooba kingdom was not a product of war but of migration driven by farming and expansion of the kingdom.” Unfortunately, the writer failed to tell readers the reason Naa Tohagu and his people left the capital at Pusiga and supposedly relocated to Gambaga.
While it is apt to shelve this account, it is inconceivable that the writer has attempted to cook this unpalatable narrative to protect the Mamprugu hegemony over Dagbon. This is not supported by facts from both oral and written archives. For the sake of the unity of the Gbewaa states, I will not disclose the oral accounts about this disturbing historical event.
Going into written accounts by Prof. Iliasu (1970), we can read about the events ensuing after Zirile’s reign ended, disputing the writer’s version. Indeed, Iliasu notes that
Faced at once with external and internal disaster, and without a leader, the elders could afford neither the luxury of a funeral for Zirili nor the time-consuming but customary process of electing a successor. They therefore drafted Tohugu, the eldest surviving son of Gbewa to succeed Zirili. But Tohugu's brothers, inspired and led by Sitobu, challenged the constitutionality of these proceedings and a fratricidal struggle therefore ensued… up in arms and uncertain of support from his subjects in the capital, Tohugu, upon the advice of the elders, fled to Mamprugu to solicit the support of his uncles. In this he set a precedent, for in later years, princes who either found themselves in situations similar to Tohugu's or were parties to disputed successions invariably appealed for assistance from their maternal uncles. So common was this practice that it became a convention amongst the princes of royal blood and the divisional chiefs, much to the benefit of the kingdom as a whole. But for this convention, civil wars would not have been what they actually were in the history of the Mamprusi kingdom, namely, fratricidal struggles involving a handful of mercenaries and the villages of the princes' uncles. And since it was not uncommon that most of these villages were of no consequence in size, these struggles were generally concluded in a matter of days, so that the kingdom was spared all the usual horrors of civil wars—ruined villages, plundered homes, downtrodden crops and attendant famine. Tohugu's flight took him first to Gambaga in the southeastern part of the kingdom and then eastwards to Mamprugu. Sitobu and his followers pursued him only to Gambaga and after a brief stay there, they proceeded westwards to Nabare and then southwards to Yendi Dabari.
Comparing the quote of Prof. Iliasu (1970) with the writer’s, one is inclined to view the latter as an uninformed opinion of mere conjecture. One would ask if the narrative is able to account for the event that led Naa Tohugu to Mamprugu and how it happened that he died and was buried at Mamprugu, only after which his successor, Naa Banmarigu, is said to have moved the capital from Mamprugu to Gambaga. At that time, Naa Shitobu and the other children of Naa Gbewaa may have moved towards present-day Dagbon and Nanun.
The writer’s conjecture that the “…Yoo kingdom adapted [referring to Dagbon] the name Dagbon…” after the arrival of Naa Shitobu and his people lacks facts based on oral and written history. The name Dagbon emanated from the language Dagbanli. The name “Dagbanba” became an ethnonym referring to the people who spoke Dagbanli. So from Dagbanba, the name appears to have metamorphosed into the current spelling Dagbamba (with “m”), which later became anglicized as Dagombas. This name hasn’t changed over time before and after the arrival of Naa Shitobu and his people, who are the progenitors of the rulers of the dukedoms of Karaga, Sunson, Gundogu, etc. in Dagbon and Naa Mantambo’s Nanun kingdom.
The Children of Naa Gbewaa
This writer also made the claim that “The association of certain towns – such as Karaga, Salaga, Zoggu and others – as founded by ‘children’ of the legendary patriarch Naa Gbewaa is a historical inaccuracy.” This statement lacks written and oral merit in the historiography of Naa Gbewaa and his children. It smacks of genuine disinterest in the oral and written history of Naa Gbewaa and his descendants. The oral account of Naa Gbewaa’s children is liturgically chanted, and Karaga (Biemoni), Sunson (Bugyaligu), Gundo-Naa (Kachagu), Kuga-Naa (Shibei Kpema), Salaga-Naa (Kayal-kuna), among others, have been repeatedly mentioned as Naa Gbewaa’s biological children.
According to Yerimea, a Royal of Mamprugu (late), historian and author of "The Genesis of a Senseless War",
Na Sitobu’s brothers initially moved with him and so they had a stronger fighting force than Tosugu’s faction. After the territorial demarcation at Bagale and Nyak’se’s succession of his father, Sitobu’s brothers moved out to found their own towns.
Mantambo, the ‘Bimbilla’ mentioned above, insisted that he should be given the land in the direction of Na Tosugu’s hand as was specified at Bagale. He was given what was due him and his capital became known as Bimbilla. His people became known as Nanumba in reference to the direction of the Na’s hand (Na nuu). The other contender to Sitobu’s skin was Biemome. He took over and became the chief of Karaga. He married the female Tindana he met there. Bogoyelego, another younger brother of Sitobu, became the chief of Sunsun. One of Sitobu’s brothers called Na Sibie remained with Na Nyak’se and became his soothsayer. He was apparently part of the decision to pass the skin on to Na Nyak’se because he probably was not interested in, or was too old to embark on, any adventure outside the capital. Na Sibie became the Kuga Na of Dagbon, which literally means “chief of the stool,” and every Na in Dagbon addresses the holder of this appointment as “Yaba,” which means grandfather or ancestor. He takes care of Dagbon in the absence of the Ya Na.
These brothers were siblings of the same mother. The maternal relationship between them and the closeness of the geographic locations of their territories is largely responsible for the cohesiveness among their descendants. Refer to Mahama (2020), Tamakloe (1931), Staniland (1975), Fusheni (2013), Motariga (2024), etc. for confirmation of these names as biological children of Naa Gbewaa.
Succession System from Naa Gbewaa’s Era and Tiduma Nayiri’s Authority
More to the writer's claimes on that article, succession to Nam in Dagbon and Mamprugu is rooted in cognatic primogeniture, where the eldest eligible male, typically a son or closest male relative, has the primary right to inherit Nam positions. This is NOT entirely the case. While it is not entirely possible to rule out cognatic primogeniture, it is also not possible to implement it as a rule of succession. This is confirmed by both oral and written accounts that Naa Gbewaa’s second son, Fogu, was preferred by Naa Gbewaa as his successor rather than Zirili, who was elder to Fogu.
In the narrative about Nayiri’s authority, the writer made a notable point that “No Nayiri has ever been enskinned by a Yaa Naa. The Nayiri has historically enskinned Yaa Naas, underscoring Mamprugu’s authority” over Dagbon. While this is against the principle of authority that was instituted at Bagli, to the effect that the Nayiri, the Yaa Naa and the Bimbila Naa are equal in Nam authority, it beats intellectual and interrogative imagination that the only Yaa Naa whose selection (not enskinment) was ever made with the help of the Nayiri was the youngest among the other contestants. All the oral and written narratives about the event of Naa Zanjina’s ascension to Yani point to him being the youngest among the contestants. If Nam was cognatic primogeniture, one wonders how the Nayiri supervised a mediation to select young prince Zanjina over elderly contestants.
This selection, after it was made with the help of the Nayiri, was brought home for the traditional enskinment rite at the Royal Mausoleum (Katini-duu). It is not therefore right to opine that Naa Zanjina was enskinned by the Nayiri. This is similar to the recent mediation committee involving Eminent Kings, namely the Asantehene, the Yagbon-wura and the Nayiri. It was this mediation which saw the final selection and enskinment of the current King of Dagbon, N’dan Ya-Naa Abukari II. It is disingenuous to assume that the Asantehene or the Nayiri or the Yagbon-Wura enskinned Yaa Naa Abukari II simply because they partook in a mediation to select a candidate to pass through sacred rites of tradition.
Conclusion
These writers online presents a narrative that risks toppling the ship of the history of Naa Gbewaa, his children, and the Dagbamba people in general. Mamprugu, Dagbon, Nanun and by extension, Mossiland have royals who trace their lineage to Naa Gbewaa. There are subjects among the Dagbamba in Dagbon, Nanun and Mamprugu who trace their lineage paternally or maternally or both to indigenous Dagbamba. The rulers and non-rulers have over the years assimilated into a complex group of the present amalgam of Dagbamba, Mamprusi, Nanumba and Mossi people.
Any account which distorts or undermines this shared heritage jettisons our identity and wrecks the consolidated trajectory of the Gbewaa states. Once again, this reply is not an endorsement of the inaccuracies by Winbeneti but an attempt to correct the inaccuracies in the article. I have tried thus far to avoid causing uneasy calm among the Gbewaa fraternity. I wish therefore to appeal to the voice of wisdom to avoid these kinds of narratives which call for replies. I apologize unreservedly for where I have gone wrong or where I have gone too deep in my little attempt to provide some education.
Based on
Prof. Abubakari Is-haq Motariga Facebook Post
Author: “The Untold History of the Dagbamba People”
Contact: 0244903765
Hi there! Please Do not spam in Comments.