Talk:Axim

Controversy about Kingship of Axim
The editing on November 15, 2008 claims a kingship of all of Axim by the omanhene of Lower Axim, but, in point of fact, Lower Axim is but one small part of Axim kingdom. In Ghana, an omanhene is not lower than a king. An omanhene is, in point not a chief. Upper Axim has omanhene, Lower Axim has omanhene and Nsein has omanhene. The editor (known by "217.171.129.70"- see response article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kaku_Kedeba#Response_to_Controversy_about_Axim_%28Ghana%29_Kingship & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omanhene) is contradictory to the office of king of Axim that was put on a foreigner oboroni in the 1970 period by His Grace Bishop Essuah of Takoradi, to put a single foreign white wealthy king (of Biffeche Kingom type) over the three equal omanhenes of: 1. Upper Axim, 2. Lower Axim and 3. Nsein. All three omanhenes are chiefs under the king for those people who will accept a foreign king of Axim. No Omanhene of Lower Axim (only) is king over all of Axim, despite that this young Omanhene of Lower Axim visited America on a tour and told many groups of unknowing americans that his title was "King of Axim" to get a drama for them to put in money. If not accept the oboroni king, then Axim has three omanhenes but not any king of all of Axim. If accept the oboroni king then Ronald is the one king of all Axim and has three ghanaian omanhenes (chiefs) in his kingdom. Perhaps some people in Ghana will accept that to have a oboroni king put over Axim by Bishop Essuah of Takoradi and some people in Ghana will not accept that. The oboroni King of Axim is not in the chief system Bishop Essuah never attempted to put a king in as a chief by the Ghana Constitution but rather as a foreign neutral king over three omanhene chiefs. So one may accept the king or not accept the king, but in neither of such cases does a single omanhene, namely the omanhene of Lower Axim, properly put himself above the other two omanhenes to be king over them. The omanhenes are all equal unto each other (except the Nsein omanhene is senior) and either they have a King Ronald over all three, or -they have no king of Axim at all. In either case, all three omanhenes are chiefs, and not kings. If King Ronald of Axim is valid for Axim then he is a real king of all of Axim including Upper, Lower and Nsein, and if not, then he is not. The foreign king is most certainly no chief, and no omanhene chief in Axim is king over the other omanhenes. The omanhene of Upper Axim and certainly the omanhene of Nsein will not be obliged to take commands from the omanhene of Lower Axim as king over them.70.112.6.157 (talk) 09:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

White Queen Too in Axim
In addition to the foreign white king of Axim installed 30 years ago, a white American woman named Maryanne Ward recently (2007) has been installed as an "Nkosohema" or "Development Queen".

See http://gcjghana.blogspot.com/ for 3 October 2007. She travels more splendidly than the King himself. "Maryanne was carried in the palanquin as the development Queen of Axim (Nkosohema)." Axim's main king rarely visits there at all. Everything seems to be run by the local chiefs and the District Officer.

Foreign (mostly white) chiefs, kings and queens are quite a controversial thing in Ghana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.78.38 (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Axim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130104082349/http://www.ghanatoghana.com:80/Ghanahomepage/kwame-nkrumah-biography-biography-kwame-nkrumah to http://www.ghanatoghana.com/Ghanahomepage/kwame-nkrumah-biography-biography-kwame-nkrumah

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Axim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111172126/http://bevoelkerungsstatistik.de/wg.php?x=1170623253&men=gcis&lng=de&dat=32&geo=-85&srt=npan&col=aohdq&pt=c&va=x to http://bevoelkerungsstatistik.de/wg.php?x=1170623253&men=gcis&lng=de&dat=32&geo=-85&srt=npan&col=aohdq&pt=c&va=x
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ghanatoghana.com/Ghanahomepage/kwame-nkrumah-biography-biography-kwame-nkrumah

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Portuguese arrival
Interesting the article starts of the history began when the Portuguese arrived.

Response to Axim Kingship Controversy
Response to Axim Kingship controversy

This is a further response to a claim and response about there being a foreign King (overlord) over the three Amanhene of Axim traditional state in Ghana, West Africa (see article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Axim). For clarification; Axim in this instance refers to all the villages and other towns that come or came under its jurisdiction, both past and present as well as Axim town itself. i.e. Axim, Agyan, Agyambra, Prince's, Ezile, Apeminyim etc.

The original discussion focussed on a claim that Axim is ruled by a King who is non-domiciled and a non-native of Axim. The most recent response claims that the instalment of this said King was carried out under the authority of a late Archbishop of the Sekondi Diocese. This in in itself would be an unconstitutional act according to the laws and constitution of the Republic of Ghana, for an arch Bishop to take it upon himself to declare someone as a King. A king or Omanhene would also under the Chieftaincy Act 2008 of the Republic of Ghana, have to, amongst other things be installed according to customary laws and also be gazetted as such. There is at this time no evidence that such an event took place and therefore there is nothing whatsoever to verify that a foreign King can or has assumed such a role. One can request a copy of the name of any such persons from the register retained by the National House of Chiefs or Ministry.

Additionally, it has never been the local custom for a King to be installed by a member of the clergy and this claim falls in to further difficulty in that no single denomination of any church is recognised as the state or traditional state religion in Ghana. This method of installing a King is a European (or Biblical) construct and one claiming such a convention is uninformed of local Ghanaian culture and traditions.

The author also goes on to claim an appointed Nkosuohema (development Head/Chief) also holds more authority than this King and rides more splendidly than him. This assertion in itself is spurious. The said Nkosuohema was in fact installed by the Omanhene of Lower Axim in a ceremonial role, her duty being to bring development to the state, not to preside over the people and state as a whole. Furthermore upon being installed it is a prerequisite that she must swear allegiance to the Omanhene and people in whose state she acts, in this case Lower Axim. Therefore the suggestion that this Nkosuohema could be above the Omanhene that appointed her and whom she swore an oath of allegiance to appears illogical, then there is the curious claim of her being more splendid than the alleged foreign King merely for being held aloft in a Palanquin (behind or before the Omanhene she serves).

For clarification the Act within the constitution of Ghana that governs traditional polities is known as the Chieftaincy Act 2008 but it requires a review and amendments, such as the name of the Act itself which is unbefitting.

Section 49. of the said Act describes the categories of Chiefs and at section (a.) includes the Asantehene and Paramount Chiefs. Such titles brings confusion and is a legacy of Ghana's colonial past in which Kings or Amanhene were deliberately labelled Paramount Chiefs in an attempt to lower their status. However, even earlier records of most European nations addressed the Amanhene as Kings. This issue was further compounded by the imposition of regents or elevation of divisional chiefs by the European Nations. For example the Ahanta state had a King, Baidoe Bonsu, who was deposed by the Dutch and resultantly one of his sub chiefs at Butre was elevated to preside over the state.

There is further ambiguity because one of the two words that form Omanhene does not have a direct translation in English. Omanhene consists of the word Oman (state or Country) and Hene (its best literal translation would be; Ruler or Head-of) thus making the nearest translation as Ruler of the State. To further develop this argument and as an example the Akan phrase "Nyame ne Hene" - is best translated as "G-d the King" not "G-d the Chief" and demonstrates that whilst this word can be interchangeable in its meaning, when used as a compound word along with 'Oman' it is more likely to indicate King rather than Chief. Additionally when referencing the online Merriam Webster dictionary; its description of King includes 'Paramount Chief' a term cited in the Chieftaincy Act to describe an Omanhene or king.

In the initial response to the claim of a foreign King ruling over Axim, it was pointed out that in fact there is extant evidence that the Omanhene of Lower Axim is a successor to the original King of this traditional state. The respondent pointed out that there are currently three recognised Amanhene of this state, that of; Lower Axim, Upper Axim and Nsein. However they have misunderstood the argument here but suggested something quite contrary to written records and the oral history. It is recognised that these three Amanhene are today independent of each other and none are subject to the other. However earlier records demonstrate that Axim was a singular state presided over by one king and that the extent of the Kingdom was greater than that known today.

Two key resources that verify this are the books of Wilhelm Bosman and Jean Barbot, the latter generally being a synopsis of Bosman's account but both write more or less the following about Axim state in or around the late 17th Century: "The countries from the Ancobersian River.... Seven of these are Kingdoms .... Axim, which as the notion of power runs here was formerly a potent Monarchy, but the arrival of the Brandenburghers [Prussians/Germans] divided the inhabitants"

The book continues to explain the boundaries of Axim with; "if we take a view of this country before this time, we shall find it to be extended six miles in length, computing from the mentioned Rio Cobre ..to the village Boeswa a mile west of our fort near the village of Boutry".

To note that the miles - the Dutch Mijl (distances had not been universally standardised at the time), today would be around 5-6 Kilometres, which puts Bosewa [Busua] about 30 miles to the east of the Ankobra.

Barbot gives a slightly more detailed account stating that: "This kingdom of Axim... extends about seven leagues in length from the river Ancober to the village of Boesua, near Boutry...This kingdom borders westward on that of Sokoo, northward that of Iguira [Gwira] and eastward on the Ancete country"

The above two accounts illustrating that Axim traditional state was divided by the various European powers and the state has diminished in size significantly since. Most importantly this division was taken entirely from areas that share a border exclusively with Lower Axim. Despite this the land area of Lower Axim state to this day is still greater than that of both Upper Axim and Nsein combined. Lower Axim state also consists of many more towns and villages than the other two.

Bosman and Barbot are also clear in mentioning that Axim was a kingdom, but make no mention of an Upper or Lower Axim nor Nsein. In fact you would be hard pushed to find any ancient references to Nsein. So it is difficult to understand why in the response the author suggests that the Omanhene of Nsein would take precedence over the other two.

Interestingly Lower Axim oral tradition suggests that the Omanhene of Nsein was in fact the King's Okyeame (linguist). By his own admission this Omanhene (of Nsein) in an article written in the 80s about the Kundum festival claims that he was the king and that this is substantiated by the fact he visits the castle in Axim town to pour a libation. An expert in Akan tradition knows all too well that the pouring of a libation is in fact a role undertaken on behalf of the king by the linguist and not the King and this fits more within the oral traditions.

Turning to the treaty of Axim, this document names three signatories, two of which are assumed to be the Amanhene of Axim and the third undoubtedly the Dutch Factor Ruijchaver. Peculiarly the other two signatories recorded as Atta Ansij and Piter Agoeij. Agoeij being a Dutch name and raising the question as to whether this third signatory was in fact an Omanhene as it is usual for an Omanhene to assume a stool name which would be in the local Nzema language. It is also noticeable that there are only two local signatories, meaning that one or two of the three Omanhene are missing as signatories? This can be explained quite simply by the strong possibility there was only one Omanhene at the time. Records at later dates in 1861 and even 1901 provide proof that there was only one King/Omahene up until the latter date.

Upper Axim generally is considered the later European settlement that was founded some time after the Portuguese arrived in Axim and would explain the Upper town's proximity to the fort Sao Antonio. Additionally other relics of European settlement are found in Upper Axim including a European cemetery which would have been segregated from that of the local people.

In other sources such as those found found in the Portuguese archives in Lisbon, there is a record that in 1555 there was a clash between the king of Axem (Axim) and the English (see; Materials for West African history in Portuguese archives - Alan Frederick Charles Ryder).

Pierluigi Valsecchi in his 'The True Nzema a layered Identity' also makes reference to a King of Axim.

The above references attesting to the fact Axim was a Kingdom and that the emergence of other Amanhene coincided with and was in all probability a result of European interference.

Reverting back to the Omanhene of Lower Axim being a successor of the earlier Kings of Axim, there are several sources that demonstrate this. For example in the case of Ahima Diki v Agiman presided over by Justice Nicholl, 1901, as narrated in Casely Hayford's, 'Truth About the West African Land Question'. In this example the King of Axim referred to as Ohin Atta or Kweku Atta was called as an expert witness. Significantly we have a reference to what appears to be a singular King of Axim and this was as recent as 1901 and by chance the name Ohin Atta is one of the stool names used by Lower Axim. The predecessor of the current Omanhene of Lower Axim was known as Ohin (Ohene) Atta.

Many of these and other references support the oral traditions alluding to Lower Axim and its Omanhene and as Bosman and Barbot record the state saw one of its earlier divisions in the late 17th century, but thereafter there is every possibility that further divisions were made. In fact the concept of a lower and Upper town or state is a European concept and also seen in the neighbouring Ahanta state as well as in Dixcove where the town is also divided in to a lower and upper town.

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence that supports the tradition of Lower Axim is that held in the National Dutch Archives in a letter written by one Pieter Kamerling, the Dutch Commandant at the Fort Sao Antonio (then under Dutch Administration). In this letter he narrates the events of how the King of Axim had been asked by the outgoing Commandant, Weijtingh, to provide 8 hammock bearers. The King provided two bearers (albeit too late to carry out the duties requested) and asked three other 'chiefs' of Axim to provide two each. One known as Allaban or Adaban complied. The other two the Senior Broker Edjefoe Kwamie and Nabakouw the Quarter Ensign declined and were eventually fined and incarcerated by the Dutch commandant.

Interestingly the names Nabakouw and Edjefoe Kwamie sound remarkably like Awulae Neba Kwaw, the former Omanhene of the upper town who by chance recently faced a similar fate, as that of Nabakouw, for contempt of court. Edjefoe Kwamie bears a similar resemblance to the name Awulae Agyefi Kwame who presently sits on the stool at Nsein. The similarities further elucidated when we consider the description of their position or roles, a Quarter Ensign is possibly the head of one of the military flanks. The Akan armies were divided in to four flanks and headed by an officer or chief, i.e Bentumhene, Nifahene - Chiefs of the left and right army flanks. Whilst the Senior Broker, could be described as an intermediary between the local traditional government and their Dutch (or foreign) counterparts and is what would be known in the traditional state as the Okyeame (linguist/Interpreter).

https://gcdb-doortmontweb.blogspot.com/2011/03/

For avoidance of doubt the two chiefs that Kamerling wrote about are certainly not the same persons as the current and last Omanhene of Nsein and Upper Axim, respectively, but in all likelihood are predecessors of these two. This is apparent knowing that 'stool names are regurgitated and you will see that both the names of Agyefi Kwame and Neba Kwaw are enumerated !

It is worth mentioning that another more well known chief, Jon Conny (Gyan-?), was said to have initially been a senior broker or intermediary and by chance he was situated at Prince's Town (Kpulisi) which as Bosman and Barbot report was separated from Axim state in the mid seventeenth century. Jon Conny was elevated by the Germans and for some time acted more or less as a king until his eventual defeat/capture by the Dutch. This again supports the point that the elevation of sub chiefs had happened in other parts of Axim state.

Conclusion

In conclusion there is compelling and extant records, from both local and extraneous sources, of Axim being a Kingdom and having a single monarch (king).

These same sources point towards these Kings being ancestors/predecessors of the current Omanhene of Lower Axim.

That for most of its documented history and even before Axim only had one king and a single royal family.

There is sufficient evidence to prove that both the Omanhene of Nsein and Upper Axim were at one time sub-chiefs or in the case of Nsein a chief linguist both subject to the King of Axim

There is no independent evidence whatsoever that supports the claim that Axim state has installed a foreign King and that such claims are in all likelihood spurious and mischievous. That the same is in contravention of the laws and constitution of the Republic of Ghana and must be totally disregarded !


 * The White King, When in Axim. The oboroni (meaning white American) king of Axim and his "royal family" can stay at Quandaho House in Axim, but they do not do so, although they have the legal right. Apparently, a young lady there at Quandaho House had designed to marry one of the oboroni King Ronald's sons (would they be Princes of Axim? To become a Princess?).  So, to avoid such an awkwardness, the King of Axim and his sons will stay some miles away at Axim Beach Hotel with a likelihood of marriage lower than at Quandaho House.2600:1700:2000:E740:F0A1:2ADC:768F:F9 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Flag of Western Region (Ghana).gif

Regarding Nsein, the Fort and the King of Axim - 阿克西姆王国
Claim: ''“Omanhene of Nsein was in fact the King's Okyeame (linguist). By his own admission this Omanhene (of Nsein) in an article written in the 80s about the Kundum festival claims that he was the king and that this is substantiated by the fact he visits the castle in Axim town to pour a libation."'' All writers of Wikip. must recognise the above to be be an utter confusion of the facts with purest fantasy. This does not belong in the article.  At no time of Mankind has the leader of Nsein been subservient to the mere leader of Lower Axim.  Lower indeed!  His linguist? okyaeame?  What an assertion of nonsense.  It was an entirely different arrangement not involving kingship.  Furthermore, to claim the very important Fort (Fort San Antonio) to belong to the stool lands of Lower Axim is to exhibit, at best, a selective ignorance of history.  The Fort is maintained by the government only, even if obroni king is there, never by Lower Axim.  (Shall Lower Axim Omanhene claim responsibility for the Rastas hanging about below it?)

The chief of Nsein was older, wiser, and senior in status to this young chief of Lower Axim, when the little one was barely born, and everafter. The true "King" of all Axim if any is the rich oboroni King Ronald, whom we do not often see. He can dispense neutral justice and money to all Axim if he wishes, but it is not often while he stays in Senegal and America. (With him only is the King of Kings reigning in Heaven.) Lower Axim alone by itself does not constitute a Kingdom, nor even a Paramount Chieftaincy. It is indeed a fine and legitimate, but quite modest, Chieftaincy and stool.
 * Correction: Lower Axim is indeed a Paramount Chieftancy (as is Nsein as well). In Ghana law, Lower Axim and Nsein are not themselves kingdoms like Asante or Dagbon (nor a "Kingdom of Axim"  --- that is only the foreigners').  They have omanahene Paramount Chiefs, higher than Chiefs (quite common), but lower than the Kings (few in Ghana).2600:1700:2000:E740:D55B:8EF1:633E:35CB (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Wheresoever in Ghana, if anyone should declare that the Chief of Lower Axim (neighbourhood in a small rural town) is the equal king of H. H. the Yanaa or H. M. the Asantehene, it will be laughed at.  Foreign "kings of Axim" apparently had no stool land.  Even the Paramount Chief of all Chiefs, Jackpo of Ho Asogli, never claimed to be "King" of Ho. 172.56.93.253 (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Question: whether Ronald comes to the Fort by the old under-sea tunnel, thus not often seen. Has he an agreement with government, allowed to by-pass GIS and GRA customs? 172.59.232.48 (talk) 01:49, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Foto of Axim Fort and the Oboroni (White) King of Axim: A foto of the Fort of the foreign oboroni king of Axim (and him standing in castle) is shewn at: http://www.kingdomofbiffeche.net/axim-home.htm, but little explanation of the connexion. 172.56.95.206 (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A response to several spurious and libellous claims made in the write up made on 23 October 2023.
 * 1. Regarding Nsein ohene being senior due to age. This is an irrelevant determining factor as elevation to a stool is a hereditary entitlement and not a according to the age of an individual. In this event if today the Nsein stool becomes vacant this would not be sufficient to make upper or lower Axim stools status higher or lower. Age of an individual is a redundant determining factor. Status is determined by tradition and history.
 * 2.The picture purported to be taken in sao Antonio is not so. The interior of the fort looks nothing like this. It is of great concern and can only shed serious doubt on the integrity of the author in making such a claim. The discerning individual can find images of the fort interior online and will be left in no doubt this photo is not taken in sao antonio, it is most likely not even in Ghana which has a tropical climate (note clothing).
 * 3. The claim this individual can choose to stay at Quandahor building but doesnt. This indicates the claimant has no official residence at Axim and only lodges at a grand building constructed by a resident of Axim in the upper town at the beginning of the 20th century. They opt to reside at a hotel built in mid to late 1990s suggest they are just a visitor to the town and have no genuine association with it.
 * 4. The attempt to relegate the Omanhene of Lower Axim to a chief can easily be negated by referencing the gazette or official website of the national house of chiefs (gov.gh) domain to establish the veracity of such a claim. In the event it is established that lower Axim Omanhene as well as the other are Amanhene it would be prudent to dismiss this and all other claims by the writer. It will be noted there is an absence of the claimant being gazetted either which is a constitutional requirement in Ghana and to parade as a person of title in Ghana otherwise is an offence punishable by a fine or imprisonment
 * 5. They have produced no extraneous independent evidence of their claims. But in regards to historical status and the claim Nsein has never been subject to lower Axim. Attention is brought to the Dutch archives which are referred to in an earlier discussion and events of 1861 or thereabouts in which it clearly sets out that Agyefi Kwame was subject to the King of Axim and that Agyefi Kwame was the chief broker of Axim. The chief broker being an intermediary ar that time between the dutch colonial government and local polities. Is Compelling evidence to support the case for lower Axim. 80.194.198.38 (talk) 13:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * an addition that this person who claims to be the foreign king has apparently admitted to fraud when they were 17 claiming they had graduated from Yale in order to secure employment with a magazine publisher
 * https://www.stlmag.com/news/we-killed-the-king-reisinger/ Kaku Kedeba (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Rebuttal of further spurious claims.
The Tunnel & waiver by GIS. The claim that ronald accesses Axim via the tunnel connected to fort Sao Antonio is unfounded. There being a tunnel connecting the Island is untenable. It would be an unprecedented engineering feat. The first underwater tunnel known to be built was in the 1840's by Brunel. Furthermore the entrance to the 'tunnel' (which is more likely a stairway and passage) in fort Sao Antonio is out of bounds as it has collapsed and is in a state of disrepair and not safe for passage. The connection to the island is a myth and was probably created to conceal a seaward gateway, which would make the fort and goods being taken from it for export vulnerable to attack.
 * If the rock stratum is impermeable Birimian (often gold-bearing in Nzema West), then a short undersea tunnel built with hard-rock gold mining technique (European if not Galamsey) could perhaps reach the nearest island as a dual-purpose escape tunnel and gold source. Should Wikipedia just assume that local, Portuguese, Dutch and British miners since 1515 were all incapable of it?  No. Recent shifting could have opened up cracks through which seawater or fresh water and silt floods.  Without reliable sourcing, we should not assert either the existence or nonexistence of the Axim Fort tunnel, unless to say "reputed" or the like, if that much is true.172.56.90.229 (talk) 08:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It would not be  a matter of whether such an engineering feat is possible due to the geology of the area in question but whether this was achieved and is still functional.
 * Suggesting that the rock is impermeable and therefore suitable for building of a tunnel is insufficient. The narrative here of saying it is a possibility contradicts the earlier claim that the tunnel is in use and makes for an unsatisfactory response. The explanation casts a doubt on the claimant stating that the tunnel is in use where they are now suggesting such a tunnel is a possibility rather than an established fact.
 * Suggesting something Is achievable is quite distinct form it being achieved or in existence and casts serious doubt about the earlier claim that the tunnel exists and is in use.
 * The reference to the so called geology and rock type of Western Nzema is also massively misplaced as Axim is physically not part of Western (Jomoro) nor Eastern Nzema and is distant to the former by around thirty miles. Axim forms part of the Nzema East District (not the same as Eastern Nzema now Ellembelle) which is east of the Ankobra river and is a modern administrative district distinct from both Western and Eastern Nzema. It again brings in to question how a supposedly well informed representative of a said king cannot differentiate between these districts and would indicate they are totally ignorant of the area of which they claim to be making  claims about.
 * One could liken this to someone claiming to be Greek attributing a feature of North Macedonia to the district of Macedonia in Greece.
 * Additionally mining and engineering are not quite the same thing, whilst they may be some cross over there are some crucial differences in their techniques which are essential in the execution of mines and tunnels. For instance a tunnel requires an opening and exit which requires precise positioning especially when ingression of water and flooding is a real risk at these points.
 * Also mindful that Axim’s coastline has substantial portions of softer rock which is subject to erosion as illustrated by the fact there are four islets situated just off the coast of Axim. The rate of erosion has resulted in several sea defences being constructed over time and illustrates that building a tunnel would present serious risks or require incredible feats of engineering that would prove exorbitant and prohibitive in terms of cost and attainability.
 * More or less until the 19th century mining in what is now Ghana was undertaken by the indigenous population (O Mensah and E Ababio – Historical Overview of traditional and modern gold mining in Ghana) deep seam mining was often not necessary but rather pit mining was more common. This makes the claim that European miners may have constructed a tunnel redundant as mining was, largely, not carried out by Europeans until 19th century and therefore until this time European miners or mine experts were not employed in the region. Galamsey also is a recent phenomenon and would have no connection to an alleged tunnel any reference to it is simply anachronistic and unnecessary. Any tunnel would not have been constructed by miners but it would have been an engineering project executed for a specific purpose thus referencing miners and mining is at best illogical. Kaku Kedeba (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no arrangement or waiver in place for such a person to enter Axim or the republic of Ghana, especially one who claims to be an undocumented, ungazzetted polity.
 * After Acheampong, from Flt Lt to Showboy, has "Ronald of Axim" been made to do visas, Customs, or even present his family's passports at Kotoka? No.  Royalty that invests would get welcomed.  Faustina was catholic and knew Bishop Essuah, but the Acheampongs didn't accept the previous white king "Edward of Axim" officially.  In 2001 Kufour and President Wade of Senegal treated Ronald almost as an equal.  Is Fan Milk the key?172.56.93.90 (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Axim's King

Up until at least 1912 the occupant of the Lower Axim Omanhene's stool was regarded as the King of Axim. There is a public records document from December 1888 that makes this clear!

In 1912 a commission was undertaken by a Francis Crowther the colonial secretary, at the time Kaku Attah ll was occupant of the stool.

Crowther recommended (although his reasoning to do so was unsound and unproven) as a result of the commission that three parts of Axim become independent but still remarked that the Occupant of Lower Axim be regarded as 'primus inter pares'.

Notably when the commission records the towns and villages of Axim's three divisions;  Upper Axim and Nsein's combined total of 14 is far fewer than Lower Axim's lone total, demonstrating the size and status of each.

It wasnt until the Native Administration Ordinance of 1927 that Nsein became an Omanhene prior to that his role was only as a chief (Odikro) and chief broker (effectively an agent for europeans).

The veracity of these claims can be substantiated through a number of documents and archives in the UK, Netherlands and Ghana many of them obtainable for public viewing.

Section 58 of chieftaincy Act 2007 determines types of chiefs and at 58 we have in the same category the Asantehene and paramount chiefs.

And under section 63 a person commits an offence if they

Acts or carries out functions of a Chief that they are not qualified to do so.

https://www.lawsghana.com/post-1992-legislation/table-of-content/Acts%20of%20Parliament/CHIEFTAINCY%20ACT,%202008%20(ACT%20759)/169

Attention is brought to Fanti Customary Laws. By John Mensah Sarbah, where he explains;

"Bosman in the year 1700 makes mention of the several degrees which he had observed namely:- Kings or Captains Caboceros Rich men The common people.....

What he wrote is so accurate it shows the conservative nature of native institutions says Bosman

[this below appears to be Sarbah’s own words]

… King is not synonymous with Captain. Ohin means chief; Oman-hin, king; Safu-hin a captain. The confusion which exists in many of those things arises solely through the faulty interpretation of incompetent ill-taught and stupid interpreters. The headmen of a village merely as such is not and can be only slovenly called Ohin, a king. If he is captain under some king he is called so and so’s safo-hin but his usual and most correct appellation is Odzi-Kro….

The king of a district with his town councillors can create a stool and thus confer on the occupant a political position"

Making it apparent and clear an Omanhene is a king and thus how can someone outside of this and not gazetted according to CA 2008 claim kingship ?

Kaku Kedeba (talk) 15:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

The foreign King of Axim question: hearts of the people
Rather than technical issues, there is a practical issue of having a foreign, oburoni king over an African populace. It is partly a question of the hearts of the people. Do the local Axim people, the normal people (as opposed to just certain ahenes) accept this rich foreigner "King Ronald" as their king? When he comes, do they welcome him into their land and that Fort and his Axim throne, or not? For Wikipedia, it could depend on how the Axim people feel about him, and treat him, as a factual matter. 174.56.68.66 (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Some people will "love" this Ronald and some won't, and some would see a white visitor and not even know that he is considered their king. Not everyone thinks the same.
 * Regarding Quandahor not marrying the Prince: No chance after obroniman saw the Krobo from Kpong working in the Station.172.56.90.121 (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

To suggest this is not a technical issue has no logical foundation

It is uncertain what is intended to be portrayed around the claim of hearts and minds of the people.

This is a matter of facts which require to be substantiated by clear and unequivocal evidence.


 * The hearts and minds of people is simply not how a king is elected/appointed in traditional Akan states and therefore becomes nothing more than a fanciful irrelevance.


 * One can make reference to the Impatassi case in which by chance in 1901 the King of Axim; Ohin Atta was called as an expert witness. His evidence relates to the election and destoolment of a King, Hima Dekyi, and explains how not just the traditional council but the people are engaged in this process and if they protest the King or chief can be destooled.

This confirms that in electing an Omanhene the people were already party to this election

In that event it would be a serious anomaly that the people who have already been party to the election and installation of an Omanhene (King)  would then seek to ratify the appointment of another alien king concurrently and through non traditional means.

Furthermore this is contradictory and in stark contrast to the earlier statements that the so called alien king was anointed by an unconstitutional unilateral act of an Archbishop.

This is a significant and unexplainable change of position and dichotomy on earlier claims casting serious doubt over the veracity of any of these claims.

Is it being suggested the people petitioned the Archbishop and what exactly was the reason for this alleged appointment?


 * It is also illogical that the suggestion of the process of appointing a king is not associated with the Ahene of any state when in fact the opposite is true, it requires all parties to be involved either directly or indirectly.


 * It would help if the claimant could provide documentation as irrefutable proof of what is being claimed, for instance something from the diocese or state institutions that regulates polities but as it stands  we have nothing save a reference to a photograph which is claimed to be at Fort Sao Antonio but nothing in this photograph is consistent with the appearance of the said fort and brings in to serious question and doubt the  truthfulness of the claimant!


 * Several examples and documentation have been referenced in support of responses challenging these spurious assertions. In addition several factually incorrect statements have been repeated by the claimant including a denial that Axim has ever been a kingdom and placing Axim in the wrong location (it is not Western Nzema) and averring to discredited and hardly reliable sources such as a mere single photograph.  Not to mention the claimant is totally ignorant and bereft of any knowledge of how these traditional institutions operate.


 * However, there are several documents and records that in fact demonstrate to the the counter argument, such as Wilhelm Bosman, Jean Barbot, Ghana’s official Archives, the constitution of Ghana and Chieftaincy Act 2008 Dutch as well as Portuguese and British archives.


 * In conclusion such claims without the certified documentary proof, have not been substantiated and must be ignored. It must be stated categorically and emphatically that there is no record, it is unconstitutional and against any legislation in the republic of Ghana or any traditional state of there being in existence a non domiciled non indigenous king anywhere in Ghana and that any such claims are unfounded, unproven and should not be taken any notice of. Kaku Kedeba (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "...there is no record, ... of there being in existence a non domiciled non indigenous king anywhere in Ghana and that any such claims are unfounded..."
 * Nana Kofi Obonyaa of Aburi Kingdom in Ghana, a white man from England, reigned until his death in 1999. Osagyefo and Flt Lt strongly approved.172.56.93.90 (talk) 22:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Important Notification and information about controversy
If one ponders over the exchanges regarding this false claim about a non-domiciled alien monarch presiding over Axim.

It is a difficult conversation to follow but one should take note of the claims and counter claims to observe serious inconsistencies in the claimants presentation and numerous times they have contradicted claims they have made themselves

The discussion has taken place over a number of years and countless requests have been made for them to provide documentary proof of their claim. But there has been a failure to do so besides further unsubstantiated claims and two photographs one which they do not own the rights to of fort Sao Antonio. The other a picture in a room which is not consistent with the features in the said fort.

Their arguments are dubious and inconsistent and changeable. For instance they claim that there has never been a king of Axim and that Nsein had never been subject to that same king.

To disprove their response is not factual attention is brought to Casely Hayford's book 'Gold Coast Native Institutions' index/reference at pages 410 and 411 illustrate two things


 * 1) Ohin is in fact a king page 411
 * 2) It also names Kweku Atta referenced several times in the book and clarifies Kwaku Attah was "King of Axim" likewise the same is recorded at pages 49 to 50 of the same.

This makes clear that the claimants unsubstantiated remarks are inaccurate and unbelievable. This is just one reference of many in response to their unfounded claims.

A monarch or polity anywhere on this planet would be somewhow documented officially but a website or wikiepdia page are not a substantive reference or proof. If an Archbishop of a diocese has invested them then they would have no difficulty providing such proof.

However Ghana's constitution makes provision for such polities and therefore there would be a record of such details which can be requested by the relevant ministry.

It must be emphasised that all this seems quite abusive and ultimately condescending that someone who appears to have been welcomed and accommodated by the people of Axim has decided to take advantage of the people and their hospitality for their own parochial interests ! Kaku Kedeba (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)