1) Tribal bias against Ashanti faculty members at Ghanaian universities 2) Is it correct to assert that, although not officially proclaimed, the PNDC is pro-Ewe and anti-Ashanti 3) Evidence of moves by the government to influence chiefs who are anti-PNDC 4) Links between the Ashanti chiefs and Ashanti Students' Union 5) Evidence of continued suspicion of student leaders of the National Union of Ghanaian Students and Ashante Students' Union who led the 1983 demonstrations and were allowed back into Ghana in 1984

1)       There is not enough information available to conclude that there was a tribal bias against the Ashanti, in the case concerning the eight Ashanti lecturers at the University of Kumasi. The most recent publication by Amnesty International concerning university students and lecturers was published on 7 August 1987 (see attachment). There is no indication in this publication to which tribes the people arrested belonged.

2)             There have been allegations that the PNDC and its political leadership are dominated by the Ewe group to which Rawlings belongs. [United States Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 1988, p.140.] The Ashanti who dominated the politics of the region during the precolonial period consider that the present government tends to favour the Ewe. Since coming to power in December 1981, Rawlings has made efforts to accommodate a broad section of Ghanaian society in the PNDC. [Donald Ray, Ghana: Politics, Economics and Society, (London: Francis Pinter, 1986), pp. 36-38.] The Rawlings' regime does not appear to have purposely instigated ethnic conflict. Please see attachment from Rhoda Howard, Human Rights in Commonwealth Africa, p.96 concerning the alleged dominance by the Ewe. Rawlings downplays ethnic differences in Ghana [Country Reports 1988, p.140.], and is himself married to an Ashanti. It would not be correct to assert that, although not officially proclaimed, the PNDC is pro-Ewe and anti-Ashanti.

3) The Documentation Centre does not hold the article you requested from West Africa (Dec. 28, 1987-Jan. 4, 1988). The article from Africa Confidential (April 14, 1989) is attached.

The article from Africa Confidential does suggest on page 3 that the government may have tried to "court" elements from the different parties of the past. This is the only information which the Documentation Centre holds concerning this matter. For this reason, it is not possible to answer your question concerning possible harassment of some of the chiefs who refuse to be co-opted.

4)             We have not been able to locate any reports of alleged links between the Ashanti chiefs and the Ashanti Students' Union, and cannot answer your question about the reaction of the government to the activities of these chiefs.

5)             The Documentation Centre does not currently have any information concerning the Ghanaian government's surveillance of the activities of the leaders of the 1983 demonstration who were allowed back into Ghana. The Country Reports on Human Rights Practices 1988 contains the following paragraph:

"The Government does not practice forced exile. In 1988 the Government continued quietly to encourage Ghanaian exiles with valuable skills to return home, offering them the opportunity to return with amnesty." [Ibid., p.136.]

In Ghana there are no legal barriers to repatriation. [Country Reports 1987, p.124.] Some ministers and officials of the pre-revolutionary period who went into exile following the 31 December 1981 have returned to Ghana and have pursued careers outside politics. [Country Reports 1988, p.136.] We cannot comment on the possibility that former student leaders or faculty members could claim and receive convention refugee status. We also cannot speculate on the penalty if any such student leaders were to be sent back to Ghana.

Professor Cees Flinterman in Human Rights in Ghana writes that in 1984 "people fear to speak their minds on political issues; this was the case on the University campus which throughout Ghana's history has been a free haven for exchange of ideas and opinions." [Cees Flinterman, Human Rights in Ghana: Report of a Mission by Professor Cees Flinterman for the International Commission of Jurists and Netherlands Committee for Human Rights, (Utrecht: SIM, 1984), p.32-33.] In 1988 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices reports that academic freedom is normally respected within the confines of the campus. [Country Reports 1988, p.138.] We have no evidence that people have been denied positions or scholarships on account of opposition to the PNDC. Informers are said to exist [Ibid., p.137.], but we have no information about a spy network operating at the university to report lecturers and students opposed to the government. We also have no reports concerning methods of interrogation by the Bureau of National Investigation.

The most prominent groups opposed to the PNDC are the National Union of Students, the June Fourth Movement and the New Democratic Movement. The most recent information we have on the government's handling of these groups is found in Country Reports 1988:

The National Union of Ghanaian Students, one of the more vocal critics of the PNDC, is tolerated and allowed to organize and hold meetings. Several leftwing political organizations, including the June Fourth Movement and the New Democratic Movement (NDM), were founded by faculty and students at the University of Ghana. The NDM is viewed with particularly deep suspicion by the PNDC. Just prior to examinations in May, university students demonstrated over campus issues and forced the closing of all three universities. The Government's reaction was notably mild, with no police or military action and no public threats of expulsion or retaliation against ringleaders. [Ibid., p.136.]

We have no evidence that the government refrains from prosecuting high profile opponents to avoid the wrath of their supporters.