Post-independence, the Ministry of Education has implemented a series of curriculum reforms to adapt educational content and methods to reflect local culture (Adu-Gyamfi et al., 2016; Aziabah, 2018; Sefa Dei & Opini, 2007). In the same spirit, music education has undergone a series of curriculum reforms to mirror the musical traditions of local communities and resonate with the musical identities of students (Adjepong & Obeng, 2018; Amuah & Flulo, 2003; Flulo, 1994; Otchere, 2019). Despite these changes, the teaching and learning of music-making in most classrooms continue to reflect the deep-rooted colonial music ideology (Akrofi & Flulo, 2006; Flolu, 1994, 2000). These reforms have preserved the hegemony of Western musical traditions (Flolu & Amuah, 2003; Otchere, 2015, 2017).The persistence of colonial ideologies stems from the failure to recognize the music education curriculum as inherently political. The failure demonstrates what Vaugeois (2013) conceptualises as Terminal Naivety, "a lack of awareness of power relations structures . . . a state of being I think of as a marriage of innocence and passivity" (p.217). By treating the music curriculum as apolitical, music educators and curriculum planners embody the lack of awareness or disinterestedness of world events and systems that shape our society (Hess, 2017) while focusing narrowly on technical curriculum improvements.To support this claim, I trace the primary and secondary music education curriculum reforms from 1959 to 2021 to demonstrate how the failure to engage with curriculum as political has allowed entrenched colonial music-making norms to persist across decades of curriculum reforms. I situate these reforms within their historical and postcolonial contexts to reveal how the music education curriculum has sustained Western musical hegemony because it operates from the assumption that the curriculum is politically neutral.I argue that curriculum is inherently politically embedded within systems of power that determine whose knowledge counts, how it is organized, and what pedagogical practices are legitimized (Anderson, 2024; Beyer & Apple, 1998; Lawton, 2012). The curriculum is not simply a neutral assemblage, somehow appearing in the text and classrooms (Apple, 1993; Kumar, 2022); rather, it operates as an ideology that reproduces relations of power (Crowley, 2021; Hanley & Montgomery, 2005). I conclude by proposing that music education curriculum reforms must be reimagined through African Indigenous knowledge systems that guide creative and performance practices in traditional music-making, dance, drama, and visual arts (Nzewi & Nzewi, 2007).