There is something fundamentally troubling about a government that appears more interested in reshaping the historical narrative of a nation than building upon the collective achievements of its people. Ghana’s history is not a political inheritance to be selectively distributed, manipulated, or discarded according to the preferences of whichever political party happens to occupy the seat of government. It is the collective story of our struggles, sacrifices, disagreements, triumphs, and the remarkable contributions of generations of Ghanaians who helped shape the country we proudly call our homeland.
The recent decision by the NDC government to introduce redesigned Ghanaian banknotes, departing from the established representation of the Big Six, raises serious questions about the direction in which we are taking our national identity. While currency redesign and modernisation are legitimate responsibilities of the Bank of Ghana, the historical and symbolic implications of removing established national representations can not simply be dismissed as an ordinary administrative decision.
A nation’s currency is not merely paper printed with monetary value. It is a national symbol, a reflection of collective identity and, in many respects, a mobile historical monument that passes through the hands of millions of citizens every day. The personalities represented on our banknotes communicate something about who we are, where we came from, and the sacrifices that brought us this far. To alter such representations without sufficient national conversation raises legitimate concerns about whether we are modernising our currency or gradually redefining our historical consciousness to accommodate contemporary political preferences.
The Big Six is not the property of any political party. They are part of Ghana’s national story. Dr Kwame Nkrumah, Ebenezer Ako-Adjei, Edward Akufo-Addo, Joseph Boakye Danquah, Emmanuel Obetsebi-Lamptey and William Ofori Atta were individuals whose names became permanently associated with a defining period in our struggle for independence. They came from different backgrounds, held different political convictions, and, in some instances, disagreed profoundly on the future direction of the country. Yet their historical significance can not be erased by the changing fortunes of political parties.
Indeed, one of the greatest demonstrations of national maturity is the ability to acknowledge the contributions of people with whom we may disagree politically. We can not claim to be building a united nation while selectively celebrating historical personalities based on their ideological or political associations. History is not a political campaign platform, and national recognition must never become a reward reserved for those whose political affiliations are convenient to the government of the day.
This is precisely why the development deserves more than casual political commentary. It raises the uncomfortable question of whether Ghana is gradually drifting towards a culture in which every incoming administration feels compelled to redefine national symbols, revise historical representations and establish its own preferred version of the country’s past. If this becomes an acceptable political culture, what happens to historical continuity? What happens to the contributions of personalities who do not fit into the ideological preferences of the government in power? Must every administration embark on a symbolic exercise of displacing the historical footprints of its predecessors and political opponents?
That would be a dangerous direction for any democracy.
Ghana’s independence history is much longer than the political interests of the NDC or the NPP. It encompasses the struggles of the United Gold Coast Convention, the contributions of the Convention People’s Party, the National Liberation Movement, the Danquah-Dombo-Busia tradition and the many other individuals and movements that contributed to our political evolution. It includes the struggles for constitutional governance, the sacrifices of ordinary citizens, the contributions of traditional authorities, women, organised labour, religious institutions, and countless unsung patriots.
No single political tradition has a monopoly over the making of Ghana.
Equally, no government should have the authority, whether directly or indirectly, to diminish the historical contributions of individuals and movements simply because their ideological roots are associated with political opponents. Such conduct, if allowed to become institutional practice, risks transforming our national heritage into an instrument of partisan score-settling. What should be a celebration of our collective identity becomes a subtle competition over whose historical footprints deserve to remain visible.
That is where the suspicion of a political vendetta becomes difficult to ignore. When an established historical representation is displaced in a manner that disproportionately affects personalities associated with a particular political tradition, the government must appreciate that citizens will naturally question the motives and historical considerations behind the decision. Such perceptions can not simply be dismissed as partisan opposition. They deserve transparent explanations and a convincing national justification.
The NDC government must understand that winning an election does not confer ownership of the country’s historical narrative. Electoral victory grants a political administration the mandate to govern within the constitutional order; it does not grant it the authority to redefine the country’s collective memory according to partisan convenience. The state is bigger than the government, and Ghana’s heritage is greater than the political ambitions of any administration.
If the intention is to celebrate additional Ghanaian heroes, nobody should object to that. Ghana has produced countless distinguished personalities whose contributions deserve recognition. We can honour our cultural icons, traditional rulers, independence activists, women of exceptional courage, national development pioneers, and other historical figures. But why must celebrating one chapter of our history require diminishing another? Why must modernisation become synonymous with displacement? Why must national recognition appear to be a zero-sum political exercise?
A confident nation adds to its history; it does not selectively subtract from it.
There is also a generational responsibility here. What historical account are we preparing to hand over to our children? What will future generations understand about the personalities, political movements, and sacrifices that shaped modern Ghana if every government is permitted to rearrange national historical representations according to its political preferences? We can not teach patriotism while encouraging historical selectivity. We can not demand national unity while allowing partisan considerations to determine which historical contributions deserve public recognition.
The NDC government must, therefore, reconsider the broader implications of this decision and appreciate that national symbols require national sensitivity. The Bank of Ghana should provide adequate historical justification and encourage a broader conversation about the preservation of our national heritage. Currency modernisation should focus on security, efficiency, durability, and innovation without unnecessarily creating the impression that Ghana’s history is being subjected to partisan revision.
And let it be clearly stated: when the New Patriotic Party returns to government, the traditional representation of the Big Six should be restored to Ghana’s currency, subject to the necessary institutional and technical processes. Not as an act of revenge, not to erase anybody else’s contribution, but as a reaffirmation that national heritage must be protected from the changing political preferences of successive governments. Our commitment must extend beyond the Big Six to the preservation of Ghana’s entire historical identity, including the contributions of personalities and movements across the political spectrum.
Ultimately, the question before us is bigger than the design of banknotes. It is about the kind of country we want to become. Do we want a Ghana where national history is respected as a permanent inheritance of the people, or one where every government assumes the responsibility of rewriting the past to suit the political narrative of the present?
I believe our country deserves better.
Ghana is not the personal property of the NDC. It is not the personal property of the NPP. It belongs to its people, and its history belongs to every generation of Ghanaians.
We must never allow temporary political power to become permanent authority over our national memory. Governments will come and go. Presidents will change. Political parties will win and lose elections. But Ghana must remain Ghana, with its history intact, its heritage respected, and its national identity protected.
WE CAN CHANGE GOVERNMENTS, BUT WE MUST NEVER CHANGE HISTORY TO SATISFY THE POLITICAL EGO OF THOSE IN POWER.
GHANA’S HISTORY IS NOT A POLITICAL PLAYGROUND. OUR NATIONAL HERITAGE MUST NEVER BECOME A CASUALTY OF PARTISAN VENDETTA.
–
The author is Iddrisu Musah Superior, a former Metropolitan Chief Executive for Tamale.