The people of former British mandated Togoland must accept the results of the 50-year-old plebiscite which determined their inclusion as part of an independent Ghana, an historian has warned.
When Voltarians elected in 1956 to join with the British Gold Coast rather than remain a separate UN territory under British jurisdiction, they participated in the first plebiscite ever to take place in Africa - and were presented with a unique, and democratic, means by which to decide their own destiny according to Habil Peter Sebald. Since then there have been many attempts to overturn the decision; but now is the time to relinquish any bitterness which remains and drop calls for independence, because "one has to accept the majority vote.”
Dr Sebald, a German historian of Africa, has been studying the history of the former German Togoland for over half a century, beginning his studies in the same year as the controversial plebiscite of 1956. Speaking on “Ghana's independence 1957 and British mandated Togoland” at a lecture at the Goethe Institute in Accra on Tuesday, he used the opportunity to address those within the former territory who continue to oppose the union with Ghana.
The accusations
He cited specifically a story carried in The Statesman and written by this author, entitled “Volta Region calls for independence” (March 1, 2007). The article reported on recent actions by the Homeland Study Group Foundation, a Ho-based organisation which regards the plebiscite of May 9, 1956, as unfair and thus invalid and which is therefore calling for the secession of former southern British mandated Togoland.
To this end, the group last year wrote to Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain, the monarch who oversaw the transition of the former British mandated territory into the hands of the Gold Coast, requesting an inquiry into the issue. In February, the group wrote again to the Queen, copying the letter to organisations including the United Nations, the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States.
The letters describe the incorporation of the former territory into independent Ghana as “forceful integration,” claiming their identity as a people has been subsumed by “black colonial rule.”
They await responses.
The arguments fronted by the Study Group include allegations of widespread fraudulence during the “democratic” “historic” plebiscite, including bribery, vote rigging and intimidation. Speaking to The Statesman Victor Kofi Nyarku of the Study Group described how both British forces and troops sent in by Kwame Nkrumah, the then-Prime Minister of the Gold Coast and head of the Convention People"s Party, extracted support for the plebiscite with sticks and batons.
Nevertheless, opposition to the plebiscite was expressed at the time through armed uprisings across the former British mandated Togoland, and especially in area around Ho, Kpandu and Alananyo, on March 6, 1957. As the rest of the country was celebrating the first day of its Independence, some within what was then Trans-Volta Togoland felt they were entering the first day of a fresh foreign occupation.
Critics of the plebiscite also cite deliberately confusing wording in the ballot papers, giving people the option of a “union” with the Gold Coast when the reality was to be integration – or, in the words of Captain Brookes, a former pilot from Kpandu and keen Volta secessionist, “occupation”.
The historical 'truth’
However, “Mr Victor Kofi Nyarku has a very curious interpretation of historical facts, which I myself, being an historian and engaged with the history of Togo since 1956, could not accept,” Dr Sebald told his audience on Tuesday night.
A number of the details have been obscured, he said, insisting that his own extensive research of the plebiscite over the past half-century has revealed no firm evidence of violence or intimidation during the voting.
He pointed out the extraordinarily high voter turn-out during the 1956 plebiscite: of those registered to vote, 82.3 percent did so and the number exceeded the number of voters who registered in Togoland for the 1954 general elections by approximately 32 percent. The high level of participation in the plebiscite adds weight to its result in the eyes of Dr Sebald, although opponents cite bribery from CPP officials, including the widespread disbursement of bicycles and clothes in the northern part of Togoland, to entice people to vote.
The plebiscite result is further verified by reports at the time of an incident-free voting process, devoid of the aggression and intimidation cited by those who still oppose the result, according to the German historian. He quoted in his lecture a letter from the First Counsel of the Federal Republic of Germany, who reported to the Foreign Office in Bonn on Mary 22, 1956: “Incidents happened nowhere. On the contrary all neutral observers pointed out the quiet and order of balloting despite the great participation.”
One of the principle contentions of those who still contest the plebiscite result today is that it was carried out by a biased authority – the British – despite the recommendations of a UN Visiting Mission in 1955 that this should not be the case. According to Dr Sebald, however, measures were put in place to ensure that the plebiscite was as free and fair as possible. The plebiscite was overseen by the UN, who sent their plebiscite administrator, Senor Espinosa y Prieto of Mexico, with a headquarters staff and 13 other overseesers. The 60 senior officers employed on registration duties were all non-African, to obviate any accusation that the results had been influenced by the nationals of a country directly interested in the outcome.
Long history
Dr Sebald has spent many years studying the long history of former German Togoland, which was split between the British and the French under League of Nations mandates at the end of World War I. Since then, there have been many within the former German colony who have called for a re-unification of the two halves, with a particularly strong call for Ewe unity, the Ewe being a linguistic and ethnic group split across its borders. This was the call of Sylvanus Olympus, the first president of Togo, and of the Togoland Congress under S G Amtor and Apaloo in Ghana.
Others have called for a separate nation for what became British mandated Togoland (French mandated Togoland gained its separate independence as Togo in 1960).
However, a number of these historical movements are based on misconceptions, according to the German historian. There has been a tendency amongst those advocating Togoland unity to idealise the period of German colonisation in order to legitimise a return to the German-defined borders, but Dr Sebald contends that this period in the area’s history was in fact far less straightforward or admirable than many “expert” amateur historians chose to remember. As an example of this trend, he pointed to the recently published short book by Kosi Kedem, former MP for Hohoe South, entitled How Britain subverted and betrayed British Togoland (read The Saturday Statesman tomorrow for a full review). On the front cover of the publication is printed “German colonialism, 1884-1914” but the actual period of German colonialisation cannot be defined thus. Rather, it took many years of negotiations and explorations before the final borders of the German colony were drawn up in 1900. Those who reminisce about several decades of peaceful German rule are thus mistaken in their history, he says.
Neither is it accurate to revere the Germans as “model” colonial masters of their “model” West African colony – as has frequently been the view of those agitating for a re-unification of East and West Togoland. Dr Sebald pointed out that the German missionaries in Togoland were held in deservedly high esteem, their work in the area from the mid 19th century bringing education and development to the region. The official German colonisers, however, brought with them the notion of Bismarkian expansionism and military imperialism and it is instructive to note that the Germans actually built more prisons in the area than they did schools – 12 compared to four – with none in the Western part that was later integrated into Ghana. The idea of a people advantaged by German education and German rule does not stand up to historical scrutiny, concludes Dr Sebald.
The people of Togoland actually looked towards the British Gold Coast colony and the opportunities for people there, for example the chance to study at university in England. In addition, the construction of railroads and the expanding cocoa farming business in the Gold Coast meant that many living within the British mandated Togoland already had close ties with the British colony long before the union. “Consequently, at the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, the people of Western Togo gave a warm reception to British colonial army as liberators.”
Dr Sebald’s arguments will undoubtedly spark a heated reaction amongst those who oppose the union between the British mandated Togoland and Ghana. Indeed, one of the key contentions of those who criticise the 1956 plebiscite is that written records at the time, the state-owned newspaper reports and the accounts of those who supervised the voting, were all biased in favour of the union. Dr Sebald agrees that there are problems with the written records, but insists that as a historian, he can work only with facts. Oral history – passed, moulded, adapted through the generations – should not be the basis for political movements and certainly not for any kind of violent action.
“I wonder whether today, in 2007, the leaders of the Homeland Study Group Foundation who are still fighting for the independence of British Togoland take into consideration the facts of 1956; that in a democratic state one has to accept the majority vote and one could not solve any problem by armed forces, neither in 1957 nor today.”
