The longstanding disagreement within one of Ghana’s most influential religious and industrial families has entered a decisive new phase after former Dome Kwabenya Member of Parliament Sarah Adwoa Safo firmly rejected assertions that efforts involving former President John Agyekum Kufuor were intended to heal divisions within the family. Instead, she has maintained that the engagement centered on a campaign to secure support for her brother’s ambition to assume leadership of the Kristo Asafo Mission. Her latest remarks have also brought renewed attention to the authority behind the funeral arrangements of the late Apostle Dr Kwadwo Safo Kantanka, revealing that the burial date received the approval of the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, following months of consultations with the Manhyia Palace.
The latest developments underscore a dispute that has grown beyond an ordinary family misunderstanding into a matter carrying profound implications for the future leadership of one of Ghana’s most recognized indigenous religious institutions. The disagreement has simultaneously raised important questions regarding succession, customary authority, governance within faith based organizations, and the preservation of the legacy of one of Ghana’s most celebrated inventors, industrialists, and spiritual leaders.
Speaking during an interview on Eyewitness News on Tuesday, July 28, Sarah Adwoa Safo categorically dismissed suggestions made by her brother, Israel Nana Kwadwo Safo Akofena, that his meeting with former President John Agyekum Kufuor formed part of attempts to restore harmony between them. According to the former legislator, the purpose of the engagement had nothing to do with reconciliation. Rather, she stated that her brother approached the former President in pursuit of support for his aspiration to become the substantive head of the Kristo Asafo Mission.
She disclosed that before the latest controversy emerged, she genuinely believed relations between them had begun improving. She explained that she had welcomed his overtures, opened channels of communication, and even extended practical assistance by helping to pay the educational expenses of his children because she believed genuine peace was gradually being restored within the family.
Reflecting on those earlier interactions, Adwoa Safo stated that she had every reason to believe the family was progressing toward unity, understanding, and reconciliation before circumstances unexpectedly changed. She stressed that the subsequent developments left her deeply disappointed because she had acted in good faith while hoping the family could finally move beyond years of misunderstanding.
She insisted that leadership of the Kristo Asafo Mission cannot be determined through political influence, personal preference, or family lobbying. According to her, the eventual leadership of the church must remain faithful to the wishes of its members while respecting the directions and succession arrangements established by their late father before his passing.
Adwoa Safo further explained that she could not support her brother’s bid for leadership because her late father reportedly introduced significant directives before his death that should guide any future transition. In her assessment, those final instructions carry greater authority than personal ambition or external intervention.
The disagreement between the siblings extends far beyond succession. It has also become deeply intertwined with arrangements surrounding the funeral of Apostle Dr Kwadwo Safo Kantanka, whose passing marked the end of an extraordinary era in Ghana’s religious, scientific, technological, and industrial development.
Earlier, Israel Nana Kwadwo Safo Akofena had indicated that disagreements concerning the funeral arrangements remained unresolved. He maintained that several respected personalities, including religious figures and traditional authorities, had participated in efforts to reconcile members of the family and establish consensus regarding the burial plans. He further argued that unresolved issues continued to make it difficult to conclusively announce the funeral schedule.
However, Adwoa Safo has firmly rejected suggestions that uncertainty still surrounds the burial arrangements. She announced that the funeral ceremonies will commence on Thursday, July 30, with additional rites continuing according to the established programme. According to her, the schedule has already been finalized after extensive consultations with the highest traditional authority in the Ashanti Kingdom.
Addressing accusations that she personally selected the burial date, the former Member of Parliament emphatically denied exercising unilateral authority. She explained that because her father belonged to a distinguished royal family within the Ashanti Region, every major decision concerning his final rites required careful engagement with the Manhyia Palace before any announcement could be made.
She revealed that preparations for the state worthy funeral began shortly after the family observed the traditional forty day rites following Apostle Kwadwo Safo Kantanka’s passing. During that period, she said family representatives repeatedly consulted the Manhyia Palace while seeking guidance, approval, and customary direction appropriate for the burial of a respected royal figure.
According to Adwoa Safo, numerous engagements took place with officials at the palace before the Asantehene eventually expressed satisfaction with the family’s preparations and granted approval for a specific burial date. She emphasized that the date currently being contested originated from the authority of the Manhyia Palace rather than from any personal decision she made.
She therefore argued that individuals dissatisfied with the approved schedule should direct their concerns to the institution that sanctioned the arrangements instead of attributing responsibility to her. In her view, challenging the funeral date effectively amounts to questioning the authority exercised by the traditional leadership of the Ashanti Kingdom after completing all necessary customary consultations.
The dispute illustrates the complexities that frequently accompany succession within influential religious organizations founded around charismatic personalities. Across Ghana and elsewhere in Africa, transitions following the death of founders have often generated disagreements involving governance structures, inheritance, doctrinal authority, administrative control, and competing interpretations of the founder’s final wishes. Such disputes have occasionally resulted in prolonged legal proceedings, institutional divisions, and competing leadership claims that reshape the future of religious movements.
For the Kristo Asafo Mission, the stakes are particularly significant because the institution represents far more than a church. Since its establishment by Apostle Dr Kwadwo Safo Kantanka, the organization has evolved into a nationally recognized movement combining Christian ministry with scientific innovation, technological research, engineering, automobile manufacturing, agricultural development, education, and indigenous industrialization. Through the Kantanka Group, the late Apostle championed a philosophy of African self reliance and local technological advancement, making him one of Ghana’s most influential indigenous innovators.
His contributions transformed public perceptions about the potential for locally manufactured vehicles, agricultural machinery, electronic equipment, and engineering solutions. Beyond his religious ministry, he became a national symbol of creativity, entrepreneurship, and technological independence, inspiring many young Ghanaians to believe that advanced manufacturing and scientific innovation could flourish within the country.
Consequently, the outcome of the present disagreement carries implications extending well beyond family relations. The eventual resolution will influence the governance, stability, and future direction of an institution whose religious, educational, technological, and industrial activities continue to affect thousands of followers and employees across Ghana. It also highlights the enduring importance of customary institutions such as the Manhyia Palace in resolving matters involving prominent royal families, even when disputes intersect with modern religious organizations and public life.
As funeral preparations move ahead, many observers will closely watch whether the competing positions can eventually be reconciled in order to preserve both family unity and the institutional legacy of Apostle Dr Kwadwo Safo Kantanka. Whatever the final outcome, the controversy has already become one of the most consequential succession disputes involving a major indigenous religious movement in recent Ghanaian history, reflecting the delicate intersection of family relationships, traditional authority, religious governance, and national heritage.
