Bawku Conflict: Examining Political Bias and Historical Injustices Against the Mamprusi

The Bawku chieftaincy conflict, often framed as a rivalry between the Kusasi and Mamprusi ethnic groups, is far more complex than a simple chieftaincy dispute. With roots stretching back decades, this conflict has been fueled by political appointments, media biases, and longstanding grievances. For the Mamprusi, the situation in Bawku represents an ongoing struggle against political favouritism and media narratives that fail to capture their legitimate claims to chieftaincy in the area. Examining historical records, such as the 1958 and 1982 appointments of Kusasi chiefs under political regimes, as well as various committees’ findings by various political regimes, highlights the challenges faced by the Mamprusi community in asserting their rightful role in Bawku.

1957: A Political Appointment That Sparked Decades of Conflict

The roots of Mamprusi resentment in Bawku can be traced back to the 1958 appointment by Kwame Nkrumah’s administration, which installed Animchema Abugrago, who had no royal lineage, as the Bawku Naaba. Traditionally, the Mamprusi had held the chieftaincy of Bawku, as their lineage is associated with royal status and chieftaincy, a legacy upheld through centuries of respected rule. However, the political maneuver by Nkrumah to appoint a Kusasi chief; one without any historical ties to royalty, was seen as an affront to Mamprusi traditions and authority, just because the King of Mamprugu, Naa-Sheriga Abdulai Mahami, did not support he Nkrumah in the general elections.

This decision, politically motivated and lacking in traditional legitimacy, has had enduring repercussions. The genesis of the Bawku chieftaincy conflict many objective minds still tie to the 1958 installation of a Kusasi chief as an act that fundamentally disregarded the legitimate traditional process, opened the door to the current political interventions as witnessed.

The 1982 Case: Animchema’s Appointment Under the PNDC

The Kusasi claim to the Bawku chieftaincy was further bolstered in 1982, when Animchema was politically appointed as the chief of Bawku during the rule of the Provisional National Defence Council (PNDC), led by then-chairman Jerry Rawlings, who was misled by Cletus Avoka and John Ndebugre, known Kusasis in his government. This appointment, like the one before it, were deliberate political moves aimed at reinforcing the Kusasi’s hold over Bawku, without regard to traditional legitimacy or succession principles. The Mamprusi saw the reappointment as a direct challenge to their heritage and rights to Bawku chieftaincy, viewing it as part of a series of political interferences that systematically undermined their role. They have however, consistently explored legal means to address their concerns.

Supporting the Mamprusi Claim: The Committee Reports and Other Investigations

The legitimacy of Mamprusi claims has been documented in numerous reports over the years, including pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial documents and archives (PRAAD Accra, ADM 56/1/198), (PRAAD Accra, ADM 56/1/198, Extract from Diary of JKG Syme, Asst. D.C. Bawku, 19 Dec 1932), (PRAAD Tamale, NRG8/2/138, Telegram from Bawku to Territorial Office, Tamale, dated 9 June 1957), and many documented evidences of legitimacy of the Bawku skins. Established investigations and presidential committees on the Bawku chieftaincy conflict, have highlighted the historical and traditional connections of the Mamprusi to the Bawku chieftaincy, reinforcing that the Mamprusi line had traditionally occupied the position and that political appointments of Kusasi chiefs were a recent and disruptive development. Despite these findings, successive governments have failed to act on the recommendations of some of these reports, leading the continuos needless conflict, and the marginalization of the Mamprusi by governments. That notwithstanding, Mamprusi leaders and community members have remained calm and law abiding, even though their concerns and documented claims have been consistently disregarded in favour of political expediency, deepening the divide in Bawku.

Some Questions for Ghanaians

1. Since when did the Bawku Traditional Area been turned into Kusaug Area?
2. Which documented evidence, written or verbal has ever referred to the area as ‘’Kusaug’’?
3. Was Bawku established in 2020, 1982 or 1958?
4. Why was a political appointed chief in 1982 only gazetted in 2020?

Ghanaians are decerning and must look behind media and political narratives of the Bawku issue. If there is any illegality anywhere, it the fabrication of a name (‘’Kusaug’’) that cannot be traced in any document in chieftaincy records, until as recent as 2022.

Media Bias: How Coverage Has Favoured the Kusasis

The media’s portrayal of the Bawku conflict has often leaned in favour of the Kusasi narrative, framing the issue as an ethnic struggle rather than a political machination and historical grievance of the Mamprusi. Media reports frequently simplify the conflict to a “Kusasi versus Mamprusi” issue, focusing on recent skirmishes while neglecting the longstanding historical context of the problem. This is purely a traditional issue; hence the media should unanimously call on the government and politicians to stay away from the Bawku case, and allow the appropriate institutions; the National House of Chiefs, and the courts to handle this matter. Failure in doing so, the media has, perhaps unintentionally, skewed public perception by presenting the Mamprusi as aggressors or provocateurs, rather than as a community defending their legitimate heritage.

This bias in media coverage has also influenced public opinion and government responses. Many Ghanaians, who rely on media outlets for information, are unaware of the historical reports and committee findings that substantiate the Mamprusis claim to Bawku. As a result, the Mamprusi perspective is often overshadowed by narratives that fail to capture the complexity of their grievances.

Arrest Warrants and Unequal Enforcement

One of the most frustrating aspects of the Bawku conflict for the Mamprusi is the unequal treatment by the government. In regions like Ashanti, Eastern, and Greater Accra, chieftaincy disputes involving rival chiefs exist, but government has not seen the need for the issuance of arrest warrants to maintain order. In Adoagyiri-Nsawam and Sampa; where both the Asantehene and Dormaa-Hene have currently enstooled separate chiefs, that is acceptable to the Nana Addo government. However, in Bawku, government intervention has been inconsistent and biased in favour of the Kusasi. Despite the historical legitimacy of the Mamprusis claim and reports supporting their position, the government has refrained from taking actions that would affirm their authority in Bawku. This double standard has led many to question whether the Kusasis are receiving preferential treatment. It is evident that political motives continue to influence the government’s stance in Bawku, resulting in moves that favour the Kusasi side and exacerbate tensions. The inconsistency of government, raises questions about the government’s impartiality in the Bawku conflict, and this has to be a worry to all Ghanaians. Kusasis have been over-pampered to such an extent that, they can barn NPP political activities in the area. The mistake by governments have been, the failure to recognise Bawku as part of larger Mamprugu community, but treat Mamprusi in Bawku in isolation. This narrative will soon fade if care is not taking, and government will have a bigger problem to deal with.

Conclusion

In seeking a balanced resolution, the Mamprusi’s claim to Bawku chieftaincy should not be simply treated as a matter of ethnic rivalry; it is a deeply rooted issue supported by history and tradition. Political appointments and media biases have clouded this reality, painting the Mamprusi as antagonists in a conflict where they are, in fact, seeking recognition of their legitimate right. Reports on Committee’s findings offered roadmap for addressing this conflict through respect for historical precedent and traditional customs, rather than political intervention. Why has government ignored these reports?

For peace to be achieved in Bawku, there must be an honest and balanced approach to resolving the chieftaincy dispute. This involves acknowledging the Mamprusi’s historical claim and addressing the grievances caused by past political appointments. The government, media, and all stakeholders have a role to play in ensuring that the Mamprusi perspective is given equal consideration, free from political and media biases. Only by grounding the resolution in historical facts and traditional legitimacy can Ghana move towards lasting peace in Bawku. The Mamprusi’s call is for fairness and recognition, not conflict, and it is time for the government and media to honour this with impartiality and respect.

By: Salifu Hamza Iddrisu

   Comments1