Abstract
The ongoing conflict in Bawku has taken another tragic turn with the ambush of two commercial buses by armed assailants, resulting in one confirmed death and multiple injuries. The attack, carried out in the presence of military escorts, raises serious concerns about security lapses and the perceived partiality of state security forces. This article examines the implications of such unprovoked violence on the broader Mamprugu area, the role of the state in ensuring justice, and the bias in media reportage that has fueled grievances among the Mamprusi people. The continued neglect of fairness in security operations and reportage risks deepening the conflict and extending it beyond Bawku into the larger Mamprugu region, with severe consequences for national peace and stability.
Introduction
The renewed violence in Bawku has once again placed Ghana’s security apparatus under scrutiny. In a disturbing development, on February 10, 2025, gunmen ambushed two buses transporting students and traders from Bawku to Bolgatanga at Bazua despite heavy military escort, leading to the death of one individual and the injury of six others. This incident is part of a pattern of two similar attacks in the presence of military escorts, this year alone, escalating the violence, bringing to question the security architecture of the area. The recurring attacks have fueled public outcry, particularly among the Mamprusi people, who perceive an imbalance in how security forces handle the conflict. While Kusasi communities are allowed to carry on their daily activities, Mamprusi residents live under siege, subjected to persistent violence despite military presence. This apparent lack of fairness threatens to escalate tensions beyond Bawku into the wider Mamprugu region.
State Security and the Question of Fairness
The attack in Bazua raises fundamental concerns about the effectiveness and impartiality of Ghana’s security forces. It is deeply troubling that armed civilians could launch an attack on buses under military escort without immediate and decisive retaliation from the security personnel. This situation suggests either a failure of command or a deeper structural problem within the security framework in Bawku. As research on conflict escalation suggests, when state institutions are perceived as biased or incapable of protecting all citizens equally, tensions escalate (Gurr, 1970). The perception that security forces allow Kusasi bandits to operate with impunity while restricting Mamprusi movements has fueled resentment, increasing the likelihood of further hostilities.
The government must urgently reassess the command structure of military and police forces in the Bawku area. A security apparatus perceived as partisan undermines trust and emboldens armed groups, making the situation more volatile. A shift in military leadership, along with clear mandates for neutral enforcement of the law, is necessary to restore confidence in the state’s ability to manage the crisis.
The Risk of Wider Conflict in Mamprugu
Bawku is historically significant in the Mamprusi political and chieftaincy structure, and instability there, risks spilling over into the broader Mamprugu area. Studies on ethnic conflicts show that when grievances are ignored, affected communities seek alternative means of self-defense, often leading to the expansion of conflict zones (Horowitz, 1985). The continuous targeting of Mamprusi civilians—despite military escort—deepens the perception of systemic bias, increasing the likelihood that other parts of Mamprugu may mobilize in defense of their kin. If the state does not act decisively and fairly, the conflict could escalate beyond localized skirmishes to a broader regional crisis, threatening national stability.
Media Bias and Its Role in the Bawku Conflict
One often-overlooked dimension of the Bawku crisis is the role of media bias. National media outlets tend to give immediate attention to attacks along Bolga-Walewale road, while continuous acts of banditry by Kusasi militants frequently go unreported. This selective focus distorts public perception of the conflict, creating a narrative that amplifies the grievances of one group while downplaying the suffering of the other. As Entman (1993) argues, media framing plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion and policy responses, and biased reporting can deepen divisions rather than foster resolution.
The failure of mainstream media to report on recurring attacks by Kusasi militants contributes to an imbalanced national understanding of the conflict. When Mamprusi communities feel their suffering is ignored, they may resort to alternative—and potentially more dangerous—means of making their voices heard, further escalating tensions. A responsible media landscape should strive for balanced reporting, acknowledging atrocities committed by all sides rather than selectively amplifying certain narratives.
A recent example of such biased reporting is the Bazua attack on February 10, 2025, where Kusasi armed men targeted a bus. TV3 reported the incident under the headline, “Six persons injured after unidentified gunmen attacked a bus in Binduri,” framing the assailants as anonymous actors rather than identifying their affiliations. More troubling was the linkage drawn between this attack and the brutal killing of a woman and her two children in Tinsongo the previous day. According to 3News, “Though the motive behind the attack remains unclear, it is believed to be linked to the brutal killing of a woman and her two children in their home at Tinsongo by unidentified gunmen on Sunday dawn.”
Such speculative reporting does more harm than good. A proper fact-check would reveal that Tinsongo is a predominantly Kusasi area, heavily secured by military and police presence, making it highly unlikely that Mamprusi fighters would infiltrate it to target a woman and her children. The claim that Mamprusi attackers were responsible ignores critical local context. In reality, the woman had previously lived among the Mamprusi in Bawku due to marital challenges, leading some Kusasi factions to suspect her of being a Mamprusi informant. This suggests the attack was more likely an internal Kusasi dispute rather than an attack by the Mamprusi.
Media houses must exercise greater responsibility in their reporting, verifying facts before making speculative linkages. When the press fails to uphold journalistic integrity, it not only misinforms the public but also exacerbates tensions, fuelling further violence. If peace is to be achieved in Bawku, balanced and fact-based reporting must become the standard.
Conclusion and Recommendations
The latest attack in Binduri is not just another episode in the Bawku conflict; it is a reflection of deeper systemic issues in Ghana’s security and governance structures. The inability of military escorts to prevent the attack raises urgent questions about the effectiveness and neutrality of security forces. The continuous targeting of Mamprusi civilians risks escalating the conflict into the wider Mamprugu region, with dangerous implications for national stability. Additionally, biased media reportage exacerbates grievances and fuels tensions rather than promoting dialogue.
To prevent further escalation, the government must:
1. Restructure the military and police command in Bawku to ensure impartial and effective security enforcement.
2. Hold armed assailants accountable regardless of ethnic affiliation to restore trust in state institutions.
3. Enhance media responsibility by ensuring balanced reporting on all acts of violence, rather than selective coverage that fuels divisions.
The Bawku conflict is at a critical juncture. A fair and just approach to security and media representation is the only path toward sustainable peace. All lives matter in Ghana, regardless of ethnic or political affiliation, and it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that every citizen is equally protected.
References
Entman, R. M. (1993). “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
Gurr, T. R. (1970). Why Men Rebel. Princeton University Press.
Horowitz, D. L. (1985). Ethnic Groups in Conflict. University of California Press.
By: Hamza I. Salifu
