es

The call by Minority Chief Whip and Member of Parliament for Nsawam-Adoagyiri, Frank Annoh-Dompreh, to reopen the debate on renaming the University of Ghana after the late statesman and scholar Dr. Joseph Boakye Danquah has once again stirred one of Ghana’s most emotionally charged national conversations—how the country remembers its founders, how it honours intellectual legacy, and how political history continues to shape public memory.

Though not new, the proposal has resurfaced at a time when Ghana is increasingly grappling with questions of historical balance, inclusivity, and national reconciliation, especially as generational shifts prompt renewed scrutiny of how heroes are elevated—or sidelined—in the country’s official narrative.

The Proposal That Refuses to Fade

The idea of renaming the University of Ghana after Dr. J.B. Danquah was first formally floated during the tenure of former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo, himself a prominent intellectual descendant of the Danquah-Busia-Dombo political tradition. The proposal immediately met stiff resistance from sections of academia, civil society, and the political space—particularly from groups aligned with the Nkrumahist tradition, who viewed the move as politically motivated and historically revisionist.

For Mr. Annoh-Dompreh, however, the intensity of that resistance remains troubling.

“I was struck when a call for the University of Ghana to be named after J.B. Danquah received a lot of apprehension and even condemnation,” he told Parliament.
“It saddened my heart that such a personality would be treated the way he was treated.”

His words reflect a broader frustration within certain intellectual and political circles that Dr. Danquah’s contributions to Ghana’s political and intellectual foundations have not received commensurate recognition.

Who Was Dr. J.B. Danquah?

To understand why the proposal is so polarising, one must understand who J.B. Danquah was—and what he represented.

Dr. Joseph Boakye Danquah was:

• A philosopher

• A lawyer

• A historian

• A statesman

• A nationalist thinker

• A founding member of the United Gold Coast Convention (UGCC)

He was among the earliest advocates for self-rule, constitutionalism, rule of law, and civil liberties in colonial Ghana. Educated in Britain, Danquah combined Western philosophical traditions with deep African intellectual heritage, becoming one of the earliest African scholars to articulate nationalism as both a cultural and political project.

Perhaps most notably, it was Danquah who proposed the name “Ghana” for the newly independent nation, drawing inspiration from the ancient Ghana Empire.

The University of Ghana and Its Symbolism

The University of Ghana, founded in 1948 as the University College of the Gold Coast, predates independence and is widely regarded as:

• Ghana’s premier university

• A symbol of national intellectual identity

• A neutral space for academic inquiry

For critics of renaming, the institution’s name represents national unity rather than individual glorification.

Supporters of the renaming, however, argue that:

• Many global universities are named after individuals

• Danquah’s intellectual contributions align directly with the university’s mission

• The current naming reflects colonial continuity rather than indigenous recognition

The Danquah–Nkrumah Divide: A Persistent Fault Line

Mr. Annoh-Dompreh was particularly critical of what he described as Ghana’s tendency to frame its history as a binary conflict between Dr. Danquah and Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana’s first President.

“Oftentimes, we yield to this tendency of drawing a wedge between J.B. Danquah and Kwame Nkrumah, which in my view is totally unnecessary,” he said.
“They all achieved significant achievements in their own rights.”

This observation touches the core of Ghana’s historical tension.

Nkrumah:

• Led the Convention People’s Party (CPP)

• Championed mass mobilisation

• Delivered political independence in 1957

Danquah:

• Championed constitutionalism

• Advocated gradualism and civil liberties

• Criticised authoritarian tendencies

Rather than complementary narratives, Ghana’s political memory has often presented these legacies as mutually exclusive, reinforcing partisan identities long after both men’s deaths.

Parliamentary Commemoration and Broadening Consensus

The renewed debate followed a commemorative statement in Parliament read by Kingsley Agyemang, MP for Abuakwah South.

In his address, Mr. Agyemang emphasised that Danquah’s legacy transcends partisan boundaries:

“When clerks of Parliament, professional bodies, academic institutions and civil society converge in the assessment of one man, then history itself has rendered its verdict.”

He described Danquah as:

“A man whose life and work are acknowledged with respect by those who oppose him politically.”

This framing sought to reposition Danquah not as a partisan symbol, but as a national intellectual figure.

Preventive Detention Act: A Cautionary Legacy

One of the most emotionally charged aspects of Danquah’s life remains his imprisonment under the Preventive Detention Act (PDA) during Nkrumah’s presidency—a law that allowed detention without trial.

Danquah died in detention in 1965, an episode widely regarded as one of Ghana’s darkest moments.

The parliamentary statement framed this experience as a warning:

“The erosion of liberty rarely announces itself loudly.”

And concluded powerfully:

“To honour him is not merely to remember his past but to ensure that the dark chapters he endured are never re-opened in our present.”

Calls for Inclusivity: The NDC Perspective

While supporting recognition for Danquah, Fiifi Fiavi Phillip Buckman, NDC MP for Kwesimintsim, urged a broader, more inclusive approach to honouring Ghana’s founding figures.

He acknowledged Danquah’s role in naming Ghana:

“This current Ghana was named Ghana because of what he proposed.”

However, he warned against selective remembrance:

“We should not only cherish people according to their political sides.”

Mr. Buckman specifically highlighted George Alfred Paa Grant, the financier of the UGCC.

“We should also celebrate the UGCC’s financier, Dr. Paa Grant.”

His comments reflect growing calls for multi-hero recognition, rather than zero-sum commemorations.

Beyond Monuments: Alternative Ways of Honouring Legacy

Interestingly, Mr. Annoh-Dompreh himself conceded that honouring forebears need not always take the form of renaming institutions.

“Honouring our forebears should not reflect in monuments per se.”

He suggested innovative alternatives, including:

• Heritage tourism initiatives

• Educational curricula reform

• Historical trails and museums

• Cultural branding through the Ghana Tourism Authority

This approach aligns with global trends that move beyond statues toward living heritage models.

Why the Debate Matters

At its core, the debate is not merely about a university’s name. It is about:

• How Ghana tells its story

• Who gets remembered—and how

• Whether political tradition should shape national memory

• How younger generations understand independence

As Ghana matures democratically, the demand is growing for a more layered, less adversarial reading of history.

Conclusion: Memory, Balance, and the Future

The renewed call to rename the University of Ghana after Dr. J.B. Danquah has reopened old wounds—but it has also created space for reflection, dialogue, and possible reconciliation.

Whether or not the proposal gains traction, one truth is clear: Ghana’s history is too rich to be reduced to camps and caricatures.

Danquah, Nkrumah, Paa Grant, and many others shaped the nation in different ways. The challenge ahead is not choosing between them—but finding a national memory spacious enough to honour them all.