GhArticles.com Every News in Detail
The Minority in Parliament has called for a renewed national conversation on a previous proposal by former President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo to rename the University of Ghana after renowned statesman and scholar, Dr Joseph Boakye Danquah.
Minority Chief Whip and Member of Parliament for Nsawam-Adoagyiri, Frank Annoh-Dompreh, made the call while contributing to a commemorative statement on Dr J.B. Danquah read on the floor of Parliament.
According to him, the proposal, which was advanced during the Akufo-Addo administration, was met with what he described as stiff resistance and condemnation from sections of the Ghanaian public, a reaction he said was deeply disappointing.
“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. It saddened my heart that such a personality would be treated the way he was treated,” Mr Annoh-Dompreh stated.
He cautioned against what he described as a recurring historical tendency to pitch the legacy of Dr J.B. Danquah against that of Ghana’s first President, Dr Kwame Nkrumah, arguing that such comparisons are unnecessary and divisive.
“Oftentimes, we yield to this tendency of drawing a wedge between J.B. Danquah and Kwame Nkrumah, which in my view is totally unnecessary. They all achieved significant achievements in their own right,” he added.
The Minority Chief Whip’s comments followed a statement read in Parliament by Abuakwa South MP, Kingsley Agyemang, in honour of Dr Danquah. In the statement, Mr Agyemang described Danquah as a national figure whose contributions cut across political and ideological lines.
“When clerks of Parliament, professional bodies, academic institutions and others converge in the assessment of one man, then history itself has rendered its verdict,” Mr Agyemang said.
He further described Dr Danquah as “a man whose life and work are acknowledged with respect by those who oppose him politically.”
The statement also reflected on Danquah’s imprisonment under the Preventive Detention Act, describing it as a reminder of the dangers of eroding personal liberties.
“The experience of Dr J.B. Danquah reminds this House that the erosion of liberty rarely announces itself loudly,” the statement noted, adding that honouring him should also serve as a safeguard against repeating such dark chapters in Ghana’s democratic journey.
While supporting the recognition of Dr Danquah’s contributions, the NDC Member of Parliament for Kwesimintsim, Fiifi Fiavi Phillip Buckman, called for a broader and more inclusive approach to honouring Ghana’s founding figures.
He acknowledged Danquah’s role in the naming of Ghana, explaining that the country’s name was derived from the ancient Ghana Empire following Danquah’s proposal.
“He traced ‘Ghana’ from the ancient Ghana empire. This current Ghana was named Ghana because of what he proposed,” Mr Buckman said.
However, he cautioned against selective recognition based on political affiliations and urged Parliament to also honour other key figures such as George Alfred Paa Grant, the financier of the United Gold Coast Convention.
“We should not only cherish people according to their political sides. I would call upon my brothers that they should also celebrate the UGCC financier, Dr Paa Grant,” he stated.
As the debate resurfaced, Mr Annoh-Dompreh clarified that honouring national figures does not necessarily have to be limited to renaming institutions. He suggested that the Ghana Tourism Authority could explore innovative ways to promote and leverage the legacy of Dr J.B. Danquah for national education and tourism development.
