Abstract
The Bawku Chieftaincy crisis has long been a source of tension in Ghana’s northern region, exacerbated by political interference and heavy-handed military interventions. This article commends the recent stance of the John Dramani Mahama administration, as articulated by Defence Minister Dr. Omane Boamah, to resolve the conflict through traditional mechanisms rather than force or political manipulation. Drawing on scholarly perspectives on chieftaincy conflict resolution, the article highlights the importance of government neutrality in chieftaincy matters. It argues that the Mamprusi people’s longstanding call for a non-political, traditional approach is both historically justified and practically sound. While praising the government’s direction, the article cautions against external political pressures that could derail this commendable effort. It concludes by reaffirming the willingness of the Mamprusi people to support the government in achieving a peaceful and lasting resolution.
Introduction
The Bawku Chieftaincy conflict is one of Ghana’s most complex traditional disputes, rooted in historical and customary claims over succession. Over the years, successive governments have attempted to address the crisis, but political interference and excessive militarization have often worsened the situation. The previous administration of Nana Akufo-Addo took a forceful approach, deploying military personnel in a manner that deepened resentment and escalated hostilities. In contrast, the current government’s decision to pursue a traditional resolution aligns with best practices in chieftaincy dispute management, as recognized by scholars such as Awedoba (2009) and Boafo-Arthur (2006).
This article commends the John Dramani Mahama administration for prioritizing a non-political, traditional approach in resolving the Bawku crisis. It highlights the Mamprusi people’s continuous call for neutrality and adherence to customary dispute resolution mechanisms, emphasizing that chieftaincy matters are best handled within traditional frameworks. The article also provides an academic perspective on why governments should act as neutral arbiters in chieftaincy disputes. Finally, while applauding the government’s stance, it cautions against political manipulation that could undermine the process.
The Importance of a Traditional Approach to Chieftaincy Conflicts
Research on chieftaincy in Ghana has consistently shown that political interference often exacerbates traditional disputes. Awedoba (2009) notes that state involvement in chieftaincy matters tends to erode the legitimacy of traditional institutions, as it creates divisions and allows external interests to influence outcomes (p. 87). Similarly, Boafo-Arthur (2006) argues that the most effective resolution strategies for chieftaincy conflicts involve customary dialogue, not political decrees or military interventions.
The Mamprusi people have consistently maintained that the Bawku conflict is a chieftaincy matter and, therefore, should be resolved through traditional arbitration. Their calls for non-political solutions are rooted in a firm belief that traditional governance structures, which have successfully managed disputes for centuries, should be given precedence. As Ladouceur (1979) asserts, traditional authority derives its legitimacy from historical continuity and cultural consensus, rather than state intervention (p. 113).
In contrast, the approach of the previous administration led to heightened tensions and increased distrust among affected parties. Excessive military deployments and politically charged statements only deepened divisions, making it harder to reach a sustainable resolution. The use of force in chieftaincy disputes has rarely succeeded in achieving long-term peace (Lentz, 2006). Instead, such measures often alienate key stakeholders and create further resistance.
Government’s Role as a Neutral Arbiter
Governments have a duty to remain neutral in chieftaincy matters, ensuring that traditional structures are allowed to function without external interference. Boone (2003) emphasizes that chieftaincy institutions operate best when left to their own mechanisms, free from undue state influence (p. 112). Ray (1996) similarly argues that when political actors attempt to manipulate chieftaincy disputes for electoral or strategic gains, conflicts tend to escalate rather than subside.
By choosing to follow a traditional roadmap, President Mahama’s administration is demonstrating an understanding of this principle. The decision to allow traditional mechanisms to play a central role in the resolution process is a positive departure from previous government interventions that sought to impose politically motivated solutions. This approach, if sustained, could serve as a model for addressing other chieftaincy disputes in Ghana.
A Call for Caution and Vigilance
While the Mahama government’s approach is commendable, it is essential that it remains vigilant against external pressures that may seek to influence the outcome. Chieftaincy conflicts in Ghana have historically attracted political interference, with various interest groups attempting to sway decisions in their favor (Boafo-Arthur, 2006). It is crucial that the government resists any temptation to align with partisan interests, as doing so would undermine the credibility of the entire process.
The Mamprusi people, for their part, remain committed to a peaceful resolution and are willing to support the government in its quest to settle the Bawku chieftaincy crisis. Their consistent call for traditional dispute resolution demonstrates their readiness to cooperate in finding a lasting solution. However, they also expect the government to uphold its neutrality and not succumb to political manipulations that could derail the process.
Conclusion
The decision by President Mahama’s administration to prioritize a traditional approach in resolving the Bawku Chieftaincy crisis is a significant and commendable shift from the failed strategies of the past. Unlike the previous government’s reliance on force and political intervention, this approach recognizes the legitimacy of traditional governance structures and their role in conflict resolution. As scholarly research has shown, governments must remain neutral arbiters in chieftaincy disputes, allowing traditional institutions to function without undue interference.
The Mamprusi people have long championed this non-political approach, and they welcome the government’s posture so far. However, the government must remain resolute in its commitment to neutrality, resisting external pressures that could compromise the integrity of the process. If this path is followed with sincerity and discipline, there is hope for a lasting resolution to the Bawku Chieftaincy crisis. The Mamprusi people stand ready to support this effort and work towards restoring peace and stability in Bawku.
References
Awedoba, A. K. (2009). An Ethnographic Study of Northern Ghanaian Conflicts: Towards a Sustainable Peace. Sub-Saharan Publishers.
Boafo-Arthur, K. (2006). Chieftaincy in Ghana: Challenges and Prospects in the 21st Century. Ghana Universities Press.
Boone, C. (2003). Political Topographies of the African State: Territorial Authority and Institutional Choice. Cambridge University Press.
Ladouceur, P. A. (1979). Chiefs and Politicians: The Politics of Regionalism in Northern Ghana. Longman.
Lentz, C. (2006). Ethnicity and the Making of History in Northern Ghana. Edinburgh University Press.
Ray, D. I. (1996). “Divided Sovereignty: Traditional Authority and the State in Ghana.” Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 37, 181–202.
