The Bawku Chieftaincy Dispute: Historical Legitimacy, Political Interference, and the Role of Media

The Bawku chieftaincy dispute is a complex and long-standing conflict in Ghana's Upper East Region, involving a struggle for traditional leadership between the Mamprusi and Kusasi ethnic groups. Historically, the Mamprusi have legitimacy over the Bawku skin, a position recognized by colonial authorities and rooted in traditional governance systems. Bawku skin was founded in 1721, and ruled by Mamprusi chiefs until 1957. However, political machinations and power dynamics, particularly since Ghana's independence, have been seen increasing claims from the Kusasi, leading to a protracted conflict. This paper examines the historical foundations of Mamprusi authority, the political interferences that have favoured the Kusasi, and the role of media in shaping public perception and tensions around the dispute. By addressing the influence of political actions, inactions and pronouncements from notable figures in Ghana, and analyzing media bias and sensationalism, this paper highlights how external forces have complicated efforts to resolve the conflict. The approach of this paper is purely qualitative thematic analysis of data, published papers, documents, and archives, to present an in-depth perspective and narration of the Bawku chieftaincy conflict. It concludes by advocating for responsible political discourse, balanced media coverage, and inclusive dialogue as essential steps towards achieving a peaceful resolution in Bawku.

Introduction

The Bawku chieftaincy dispute is among the most protracted and contentious conflicts in Ghana, rooted in a complex interplay of historical, ethnic, and political factors. The issue primarily centers on the struggle for chieftaincy legitimacy between the Mamprusi and Kusasi ethnic groups in the Bawku Traditional Area. While the Mamprusi assert historical rights to the Bawku skin, the Kusasi lay claim to it based on demographic majority and political support garnered in recent decades (Longi, 2014). Governments have not been able to resolve this conflict, partly because it serves their political interest. As rightly posited by Dramani and SEBASTIAN (2022), the supposed failure of government(s) to resolve conflicts, in this case, the Bawku chieftaincy conflict, arises basically because state actors pursue strategic interests in the peace processes, which provokes adversarial, a classic example was how the Opoku-Afari Committee Report, the government of Ghana’s first official response to the Bawku conflict in 1957, protracts and further complicates the conflict. Then the 1982 political meddling by the Provisional National Defense Council (P.N.D.C) also exacerbated the Bawku conflict.

Political interferences and media representation have further fuelled this tension, frequently shaping the narrative around the dispute rather than fostering peace. The traditional lineages of both factions or rivalry chiefs have to be established to ascertain the legitimacy of their claims to the Bawku skins. First, it is important to examine Animchema’s genealogy and that of Seidu Abagre within chieftaincy or royalty context. But before that, an outline of the research design is necessary.

Methodology

Research Design

This study utilizes a qualitative thematic analysis to investigate the historical, political, and media influences on the Bawku chieftaincy dispute in Ghana. A qualitative approach is ideal for this study, given its focus on nuanced historical and socio-political narratives, with a particular interest in how various actors shape and perceive legitimacy, authority, and the chieftaincy conflict in Bawku.

Data Collection

1. Document Analysis

Archival materials, including colonial records, chieftaincy documents, government publications, and legal rulings, were sourced to construct a foundational understanding of traditional governance structures, particularly the Mamprusi's historical authority over the Bawku chieftaincy. These materials provide a longitudinal view of the dispute’s origins and the political developments surrounding it.

2. Secondary Literature Review

An extensive review of scholarly literature on Ghanaian chieftaincy, ethnic relations, and the Bawku conflict was conducted. This included academic books, journal articles, and reports, enabling a critical examination of the historical and political dimensions of the Mamprusi-Kusasi dispute. The literature review aimed to situate the Bawku conflict within broader academic discussions on colonial and post-colonial governance in Ghana.

3. Media Content Analysis

To examine the role of media in shaping the conflict, content from print, broadcast, and social media (notably Facebook and WhatsApp) was reviewed. Media sources were selected based on relevance to key events and their representation of the conflict. The analysis explored the tone, language, and framing of Mamprusi and Kusasi claims, particularly identifying sensationalism, bias, and instances of unbalanced reporting that could potentially escalate tensions.

4. Political Statements and Public Records

Public statements by political figures; such as Ghanaian presidents and parliament members; were collected from news archives and government records. These statements were analyzed for their impact on public perception, with particular attention to the language used and its implications for reinforcing or contesting narratives within the chieftaincy dispute.

Sampling Strategy

Purposive Sampling was employed to select documents, literature, media reports, and statements directly related to the Bawku chieftaincy issue. This approach ensured the inclusion of sources most relevant to understanding shifts in authority, claims of legitimacy, and the impact of political and media discourse.

Media Sampling focused on articles, broadcasts, and social media posts corresponding with major events or notable political statements, ensuring a comprehensive view of media portrayals across different platforms.

Data Analysis

1. Thematic Analysis

Data were coded and organized into thematic categories representing the study's key focus areas: historical legitimacy, political influences, and media portrayal. This approach helped identify recurring patterns in how various actors frame the Mamprusi and Kusasi claims, highlighting the role of historical narratives, political motivations, and media biases.

2. Discourse Analysis

A discourse analysis was applied to political statements and media content to examine language, tone, and narrative framing. This method provided insights into the rhetorical strategies used by public figures and media outlets, revealing underlying assumptions, biases, and the potential of language to either polarize or mitigate conflict.

Validation of Findings

Triangulation was used to cross-check findings from multiple sources (historical records, media content, political statements, and secondary literature), ensuring a robust and reliable interpretation of the data.

Peer Review involved presenting documented data or findings to experts in Ghanaian political history, media studies, and conflict analysis. Their feedback helped refine the analysis and ensure an accurate representation of the complex dynamics within the Bawku conflict.

Ethical Considerations

All data were analyzed with sensitivity to the ongoing nature of the Bawku conflict. Care was taken to present findings impartially, and language was chosen to avoid perpetuating bias. This research aims to contribute to peacebuilding by promoting balanced and responsible discourse around the Bawku chieftaincy dispute.

Limitations

This study acknowledges the challenges posed by the sensitivity of the Bawku conflict, potential biases in media reporting, and possible gaps in historical records. Additionally, the nature of social media content presented challenges in verifying the authenticity of some claims. These limitations were mitigated through rigorous cross-referencing and maintaining a critical perspective throughout the analysis.

The Origin and Genealogy of Animchema Abugrago Azoka

Abugrago Azoka (grandfather of the current politically appointed Kusasi chief), and his wife were Yangas from Duutinga and Kamsaug respectively, in the Koulpelogo Province of Burkina Faso. They migrated to Pusiga from Burkina Faso. Azoka was neither a Tendana nor a royal, back at his hometown in Duutinga or Pusiga or when he came to Bawku. Azoka was a sorcerer and traditional healer. This is authentic and verifiable fact, by both documented and oral folklores.

While in Pusiga, their son, Abugrago (father of the current Kusasi chief), worked in the stable of the Pusiga Naba. Abugrago committed an abominable act of forcefully sleeping with a young girl in Pusiga, and fled to avoid punishment. His family was subsequently banished from Pusiga, in the 1940s. They moved to Bawku, where they sought refuge with a Mamprusi prince, Yeremea Mahama, who sheltered them with the permission of then Bawku Naaba, Naa Yakubu Mamboda Kulugu (1936-1950), the biological father of Naa Alhaji Seidu Abagre Kulugu, Bawku Naa Sheriga II. Per the custom and tradition, relative to Abugrago committing this sacrilegious act of rape, Prince Yeremea provided items to the Pusiga Naba for the purification rights on behalf of Abugrago through the Bawku Naa. This paved way for the Azoka family to be sheltered by Prince Yeremea, in the Mamprusi suburb of Natinga. As a sign of gratitude, Abugrago worked in the stable of Prince Yeremea and later became his sandal bearer when Prince Yeremea was enskinned as Yorugunaba by the 12th Bawku Naaba, Naa Wuni Bugri Saa (1951-56).

Azoka lived the rest of his life in Naa Mahama II’s Palace in Natinga, and when he died under the care of Naa Yeremea Mahama, Azoka was buried and his funeral performed by the Mamprusis. Abugrago's sister; Alalpoka was given in marriage to Naa Mahama II family as a sign of gratitude. She was subsequently married to Yeremea's nephew; Ziblim Amandi alias Amore. The couple had a son; Ibrahim Amandi popularly known as Ringo, who lived in a house built by Naa Yeremea. Their grandchildren and great grandchildren who live in Natinga, a Mamprusi community in Bawku, know verily that their grandmother was a Yanga by tribe and not a Kusasi and their great uncle Abugrago and his son Animchema are Yangas and not Kusasi. Ringo’s children and grandchildren are alive and can testify to these facts. (Credit; Voice of Mamprugu).

The Origin and Genealogy of Naa Seidu Abagre

Bawku Naaba, Naa Alhaji Seidu Abagre Kuluga, Naa Sheriga II, is a direct descendant of Naa Atabia, the 10^th King of Mamprugu, because, Naa Atabia’s son, Naa Ali Atabia Muu, was the 1^st Bawku Naaba, enskinned by his father in 1721. When Naa Ali Atabia passed on in 1732, his son, Naa Alibilla Muzabaga inherited the skins of Bawku, and reigned from 1733 to 1747. When he joined his ancestors in 1747, Naa Yakubu Atabia Mampaya was enskinned as 3^rd Bawku Naaba who reigned from 1748 to 1753. It is imperative to state that, Naa Atabia Yakubu is the direct 3^rd generation grandfather of Naa Alhaji Seidu Abagre Kuluga, the 15^th Bawku Naaba, enskinned by the Nayiri, in 2023. Following the demise of Naa Yakubu Atabia in 1753, Naa Mahamdu Ali Waafu was enskinned Bawku Naaba, and ruled from 1754 to 1764, and was succeeded by Naa Mahama Mahamadu Sateem, 1765 to 1829 (the direct great grandfather of Naa Alhaji Seidu Abagre Kuluga, the 15^th Bawku Naaba). Naa Baako Mahama, inherited the skins of Bawku following the death of Naa Mahama Mahamadu Sateem, and ruled Bawku from 1830 to 1843, where Naa Mamboda Mahama Tod-Bia succeeded him, and reigned from 1844 to 1895. Naa Mahama Mamboda Zangina (direct grandfather of Naa Alhaji Seidu Abagre Kuluga), ruled from 1896 to 1908 as the 8^th Bawku Naaba. When Naa Zangina joined his ancestors, Naa Zangbeo Mambora Lab-Pusga inherited him, and ruled Bawku from 1909 to 1918 as the 9^th Bawku Naaba. It was during his reign that white men came to Gold Coast, and met an established and functioning traditional governance system. Naa Bugri Mamboda Lobzuri became the next Bawku Naaba, from 1922 to 1935, and was succeeded by Naa Yakubu Mamboda Kuluga, 1936 to 1950 (the direct father of Naa Sheriga Seidu Abagre Kuluga). Naa Wuni Bugri Saa, became the 12^th Bawku Naaba, and ruled from 1951 to 1956, and was succeeded by Naa Yeremea Mahama Salma, 1957 to 1962. It was during Naa Yeremea Salma’s reign that, Nkrumah orchestrated and installed a parallel Kusasi chief as Bawku Naaba. This became the genesis of the needless chieftaincy conflict, known as the Mamprusi-Kusasi conflict. Following the overthrow of Nkrumah’s CPP government in 1966, National Liberation Council (NLC) constituted a Commission of inquiry to investigate all chieftaincy disputes Nkrumah created; those he forcefully removed as chiefs, and those he wrongly installed as chiefs for political convenience (Allman, 2001). The report of the Commission, found Abugrago Azoka as illegitimate chief because he had no chieftaincy lineage, and no claim to the Bawku skins. He was declared a commoner by the Commission, and died as a commoner. So, the 14^th Bawku Naaba, Naa Adam Zangbeo was rightfully enskinned by the Nayiri, the legitimate and rightful kingmaker of the Bawku skins in 1967, and ruled until his death in 1981(Oku & Korsah, 2019). The Kusasi saw this as an opening, hiding behind their ties with the Provisional National Defence Council, (P.N.D.C), led by late Jerry John Rawlings, and got another politically appointed Kusasis chief, in the person of Animchema Abugrago Azoka. Mind you, Animchema Abugrago Azoka, is the son the late commoner, Abugrago Azoka, whom NLCD 112 rightfully removed and appropriately described as a commoner, a decision that was sustained by Chieftaincy Tribunal of National House of Chiefs Appeal Court, Friday, 20^th May, 1983 Animchema Abugrago lost to the Nayiri, Naa Bongo Adam Badimsuguru. So, on what basis is Animchema Abugrago Azoka been referred to as Bawku Naaba?

Historical Context of Both Claims

Following the elaborate and undeniable illustrations of the origins and genealogies of both sides, one can delve into the basis of their individual claims.

The Mamprusi’s Claim

The Mamprusi Kingdom, which spans parts of northern Ghana, has historically extended its influence to Bawku, part of the Upper East Region. Historical records posit that, the Mamprusi were early settlers who established a chieftaincy structure under the authority of the Nayiri, the kingdom’s overlord. This chieftaincy was formally recognized by colonial administrators, who consistently appointed Mamprusi chiefs to the Bawku skin (Rattray, 1932). According to colonial records, the Bawku skin was one of several positions appointed by the Nayiri, thereby embedding the authority of the Mamprusi kingdom over Bawku (Longi, 2014; Yeremea, 2009). This position or claim by the Mamprusis, is supported by the elaborate geology of Mamprusi chiefs or rulers of the Bawku skins. An undeniable and verifiable facts or claim.

Historical Context of Kusasi’s Claim

Scholars highlight the pre-colonial Mamprusi chieftaincy structure as advanced and centralized compared to neighbouring groups. The Mamprusi hierarchy included chiefs appointed by the Nayiri and operated alongside traditional authorities like the “tengdanas,” or land priests (Rathbone, 2000). In contrast, Kusasi society prior to Mamprusi and colonial contact was reportedly acephalous, lacking centralized political authority (Longi, 2014; Bening, 2007). These differences in governance structures underscore the legitimacy of Mamprusi claims, supported by historical records of British colonial authorities that documented and upheld Mamprusi rule over Bawku (Longi, 2014; Yeremea, 2009). Therefore, for the Kusasis to claim that British colonialists came to the Bawku area from Gambaga, along with the Mamprusis and imposed them as chiefs over Kusasis on their own land, is not supported by any historical or documented evidence or facts. Instead, the British colonialists, when they came to the Bawku area in 1907, decided to appoint chiefs at the Kusasi villages in order to practice their indirect rule system, the Mamprusi villages of Bawku, Sinnebaga, Binduri, Worikambo, Tanga, and Teshi were already having chiefs, so there no need to appoint chiefs for them (Bening, 2007; Yiremea, 2009) as also cited in (Yidana, . As such, the British did not appoint either Kusasi clan heads or Tendanas as their chiefs, neither was any Mamprusi or person of any other tribe was made a chief of a Kusasi village by the British. Kusasi Tendanas such as Bieng-naba of Binaba and Kusanaba were all enskinned as chiefs of their villages by the Nayiri, and never has a Mamprusi ever been enskinned as a chief in any of the Kusasi or Nabdam or Moshie or Bissa or Kassena villages. A Nabdam was enskinned the chief of Nabdam village such as Tempane, a Moshie was enskinned the chief of Moshie Village such as Kugri, a Bissa as chief of Kulungungu, a Kasena as chief of Timoni which is a Kasen village (Rathbone, 2000; Longi, 2014). Most importantly, no Kusasi was enskinned a chief in any Mamprusi village of Bawku, Tanga, Teshi, Sinnebaga, Binduri, and Worikambo. Not before colonialism, or during colonial rule. Why then are some political elements, dead bend on promoting and advancing illegality and injustice, by denying the Mamprusis their birth right?

Fundamentally, prior to the arrival of the British colonialist in the Gold Coast, the Bawku Area was cosmopolitan. It was and still constituted by; Mamprusi villages, Kusasi villages, Bissa villages, Moshie villages, Nabdam villages, Bimoba villages and a Kassena village, as illustrated above, were all enskinned by the Nayiri; King of the Mamprugu Kingdom (Ladouceur, 1979). However, British for administrative expediency and to gain control over the Mamprugu kingdom including the Upper East Region, embarked on renaming of parts of the Mamprugu area and re-designating the ethnic groups within the Mamprugu kingdom, including the Bawku enclave whose identities were already defined. For instance, Zotinga; which covered the Bawku East Municipal area, the Bawku West and the Garu-Tempani Districts, was renamed Kusasi, and several other areas. This created the erroneous impression and false claim that the Kusasis have majority in Zotinga (Dramani & SEBASTIAN, 2022; Yiremea,2009). This is the basis of the Kusasi majority claim for the ownership of the Bawku Traditional Area.

Political Interference and Changing Dynamics

Political dynamics around Bawku’s chieftaincy began shifting during the late colonial and early post-colonial periods. Under British rule, the Native Authority Ordinance of 1933 although formalized the role of Mamprusi leaders in governance(Longi, 2014; Yiremea, 2009), came along with its own maybe unintended consequences, because it increased the Kusasi growing taste for chieftaincy due to some changes in the traditional customs and practices. (a topic for another discussion).

Subsequently, immediately after Ghana’s Independence in 1957, Kwame Nkrumah’s Convention People’s Party (CPP), started a political process of integrating traditional authority into a centralized modern state structure. However, it also came with explicit and implicit traditional events. It was, largely a political process aimed at undermining the roles and relevance of the chieftaincy institution (Agyeman, 2021; Anamzoya, 2010), as it altered the traditional governance structures of some areas, including Mamprugu kingdom, especially Bawku Traditional Area. Agyeman (2021), described it as a political move targeted at chiefs and traditional rulers who did not support his CPP in the 1954 elections, so Nkrumah used it as an avenue for rewarding political royals and for deposing or undermining the powers of non-loyalist chiefs (Agyeman-Duah, 2007). Kwame Nkrumah was quoted as saying, "those of our chiefs who are with us, we do honour you, those who are against us, shall run away fast and leave their sandals at the back"(Rathbone, 2000). This populist statement, was tactically deplored and implemented in the Mamprugu Kingdom; specifically, the Bawku Traditional Area. Because, in the run-up to the 1954 elections, the Mamprusi supported the Northern People’s Party (N.P.P), while the Kusasi supported Kwame Nkrumah and his Convention People’s Party (C.P.P) given the election ethnic and partisan dichotomy (Lund, 2003). Nkrumah and the C.P.P seized the opportunity to secure control of the north, so they used the opportunity as a political strategy and systematically undermined the Nayiri and weaken his authority, by infiltrating the satellite Mamprusi colonies such as the Frafra and Kusasi communities (Dramani & SEBASTIAN, 2022). Nkrumah, through the Chiefs Recognition Act of 1959, removed chiefs who were perceived unloyal to him and his government, and installed personalities who were not necessarily from royal families as chiefs (Boafo-Arthur, 2003). For instance, one beneficial of such political miscarriage of justice, was Azoka Abugrago, the father of the political appointed Bawku Naaba, the self-imposed chief of Bawku, a commoner and son of a commoner as described by the Chieftaincy Amendment Decree; NLCD 112 in 1966 by the National Liberation Council (NLC) government, disqualified some chiefs based on their political affiliations. As a result, Abugrago Azoka was removed as Bawku Naaba, and described as a commoner by a well-constituted non-partisan committee of inquiry, unlike the Opoku-Afari committee of 1958. This event, restored the Nayiri’s traditional authority as the only legitimate installer of Bawku-Naaba, leading to the enskinment of the 14^th Bawku Naaba, Naa Adam Zangbeo by the Nayiri. (Rattray, 1932).

Similarly, the Provisional National Defence Council Law (PNDCL) 107 was decreed in 1985 to remove some chiefs based on political affiliations. This political process also disrupted the customary process of selecting chiefs from the original family lineages hence contributing to chieftaincy conflicts in Ghana is witnessed today. For a proper appreciation of the complex chieftaincy disputes in Ghana, something not limited to Bawku alone, Anamzoya (2010) posits that, as of 2008, about 63 chieftaincy cases were pending before the National House of Chiefs, and over 400 cases were pending before the Regional House of Chiefs. An example of which, is the Bawku chieftaincy conflict, between the Kusasi and Mamprusi ethnic groups, predates pre-colonial era (Awedoba, 2010; Agyeman, 2021). Bawku has been under Mamprusi rule since the pre-colonial era, and no Kusasi lineage is of royal status (Awedoba, 2010; Chieftaincy Amendment Decree, NLCD 112, 1966). Even in the face of the facts, Boafo-Arthur (2003), posits that, Kusasis still lay claim to the Bawku skins insisting they were the first settlers and majority ethnic group in the area, hence they have the right to the chieftaincy. This is a reductionist and lazy argument. Chieftaincy and royalty, does not hinge on majoritarian rule, neither is it something that can be created through lies and unleashing violence on innocent people, because ‘’…….the Ghanaian chieftaincy is nobody’s creation and therefore cannot be easily destroyed’’(Oku & Korsah, 2019). This quote, resonate with the Mamprusis traditional birth right as royals of Bawku, for which no amount of political and media machinations and maneuvering can destroy the fundamental traditional rights of Mamprusis. Their claim to Bawku skins is based on rightful lineage, customs and tradition, and not political legislations and decrees.

These Decrees and Acts created a situation for the first time in 1957, where Kusasis and Mamprusis were competing for the Bawku skin in what Longi (2014) described as a "two kings one kingdom affair, as it is also captured in (Agyeman-Duah, 2007), a matter which was resolved by NLCD 112, since it was established that Abugrago Azoka was not a royal or related to chieftaincy in any form or shape, an outcome which defeats the Kusasis majoritarian claim. The only times Kusasis have come close to semblance of chieftaincy, have been through political machination, like the Chiefs Recognition Act, 1959 and the PNDC Law 75, 1983, which made a commoner a chief, and his son Animchema Asigri Abugrago also benefiting from same political manoeuvring. Details of how they become political chiefs, constitute the next pages of this work.

The Process of Azoka Abugurago Becoming a Political Chief

Following the implementation of the Chiefs Recognition Act of 1959, Nkrumah turned his evil eye on Mamprugu kingdom. Bawku became handy because Bawku Naaba, Naa Wuni Bugri Saa, 12^th Bawku Naaba, had just joined his ancestors. Nkrumah, through his C.P.P agents in Bawku; namely Assibi Azonkor and Dugunyeli Herbi were tasked to find a Kusasi to be made a Bawkunaba in 1957 to rival the Mamprusis who supported the Northern People’s Party in the elections of 1954 (Agyeman, 2021). Abugrago, a Yanga metaphorized into a Kusasi; a C.P.P loyalist, as indicated earlier, not related to chieftaincy or royalty, was chosen as a rival chief to the Mamprusis. This moves by Kwame Nkrumah, embolden the Kusasi in their false claim for Bawku chieftaincy, and ushered in the Bawku chieftaincy conflict.

Fast forward, after the NLCD 112 removed him from his false hope of being a royal, came the PNDC regime, which also master-minded and made the usurper, Asigri Animchema Abugrago Azoka, to continue his father’s false dream of royalty. PNDCL 75 was promulgated on 24 February 1984 and imposed on the National House of Chiefs, despite their ruling on the matter on 20^th May, 1982. The PNDC government continued their agenda of making a Kusasi chief of Bawku, so to prevent and deny Mamprusi the opportunity to claim their traditional birth rights (Davis, 1984; Bening, 2007) hence the unending Bawku chieftaincy conflict. One may ask, so why have Mamprusis’ waited for this long. Simple, the regime placed restrictions on the Mamprusi from performing the funeral rites of late Naa Adam Zangbeo, the 14^th Bawku Naaba. As law abiding people, they resorted to the court and fought their case and not through violence as Kusasis are doing.

This conflict is a political creation, and with political will, can easily be resolved using the appropriately mandated institutions; the National House of Chiefs and legal courts, as was the case in 1966 by the NLC government and 1983. But for political expediency, governments have been reluctant in given the Bawku case, a fair hearing.

The Media’s Role in Shaping the Bawku Chieftaincy Conflict

The media’s role in the Bawku chieftaincy dispute has been both constructive and divisive. Some outlets have provided a platform for public dialogue and the airing of grievances, while others have perpetuated bias, sensationalism, and divisive rhetoric. Media coverage frequently amplifies political statements favouring one group, deepening tensions and reinforcing polarized narratives rather than fostering coexistence.

Social media adds further complexity, as unverified reports of violence or discrimination spread rapidly, intensifying tensions between the Mamprusi and Kusasi communities. Misleading content, particularly on platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp, and even some television and radio stations, fuels mistrust, accusations, and misinformation, which escalate hostilities. The selection of guests on certain television programs has often been skewed and unbalanced, contributing to an incomplete representation of the conflict.

How Political Statements Influence the Bawku Chieftaincy Claims

Political figures have significantly influenced the Bawku dispute, with many openly supporting the Kusasi side. Notable politicians, including Nana Addo-Dankwa Akufo-Addo, President of Ghana; John Dramani Mahama, former President; Mahama Ayariga, Member of Parliament for Bawku Central; and some notable personalities like Rev. Azumah, a public advocate, Dr. Victor Doke and Dr. Emmanuel Bombande, both security analysts have made statements perceived as endorsements of Kusasi claims. For instance, President Akufo-Addo, a seasoned lawyer, referenced a supposed Supreme Court ruling that allegedly resolved the Bawku chieftaincy issue, a statement criticized as misinformed and potentially inflammatory.

Similarly, former President John Mahama, while addressing Bawku’s security situation, remarked, “as far as I am concerned, there is no chieftaincy conflict because there is only one known king, Asigri Abugrago Azoka II” (Class FM online, 2024). He further stated that his father, the Bawku Naaba, is the only chief in Bawku, dismissing any notion of a chieftaincy dispute. Such statements, seen by some as lacking historical grounding, risk intensifying tensions rather than resolving them.

Additionally, Mahama Ayariga’s assertion in interviews that “the Kusasis are the true owners of the Bawku skin” (Joy News, 2019, 2022) has fueled debate and highlighted perceived political bias. These public endorsements often heighten local tensions and are sometimes presented in a partisan manner by media outlets that echo these views without offering balanced historical perspectives. Reverend Azumah has also argued that Kusasis have a natural right to the Bawku skin, dismissing Mamprusi historical claims as inaccurate, a stance contested by historians and Mamprusi advocates who cite colonial-era records supporting Mamprusi rule in Bawku. The repeated emphasis on these positions by prominent figures, along with limited fact-checking by media, has fostered a climate where political agendas overshadow historical realities and undermine traditional rights.

Addressing Misinformation and Setting the Record Straight

Rev. Azumah's assertion that Kusasi claims have always held primacy in Bawku’s chieftaincy matters is contradicted by colonial records, such as the Nalerigu Traditional Archives (1952), which document the Bawku skin as historically under Mamprusi-appointed chiefs. Claims that Kusasi chiefs existed before the political shifts of 1958 are inaccurate; instead, these changes were influenced by the CPP government under Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, aiming to consolidate local support. Statements like those of Mahama Ayariga, which imply a traditional Kusasi right to the Bawku skin, are more reflective of political positions than historical evidence. While the Kusasi population forms a majority in the area, a claim that warrants scrutiny, this demographic fact does not automatically translate to traditional authority, especially given the significance of longstanding governance structures. John Mahama’s assertion that the Bawku conflict is unrelated to chieftaincy does not alter this reality. As for President Nana Akufo-Addo, he could substantiate his stance by publicly presenting the Supreme Court ruling that supposedly resolved the Bawku chieftaincy dispute, thus questioning the legitimacy of Naa Alhaji Seidu Abagre as the Bawku Naaba.

Contrary to Lawyer Anokye Frimpong’s representation; that Mamprusis were invited by Kusasis to settle in Bawku and that political interference in the chieftaincy began only in 1966 (GTV BFS, May 17, 2023), the Mamprusis named the area Bawku, meaning "valley." Furthermore, the CPP government’s actions in 1957 initiated the region’s chieftaincy disputes. This narrative, which suggests that Mamprusis are a small minority invited to Bawku, should be critically reviewed. How could an invitee found and name the place?

Finally, Dr. Victor Doke, a lecturer at the Kofi Annah International Peace Center, calling for the arrest or removal of Bawku Naaba, Naa Seidu Abagre Kuluga, from his birthplace of Bawku, is a particularly unfortunate position. As a security analyst, he should recognize the potential consequences of such statements, which could further inflame the situation. On what grounds should Naa Abagre Kuluga be removed from Bawku? As Dauda Jawara Salifu, a member of the Nayiri's Legal Counsel, stated, “You cannot exile someone from their hometown,” particularly when no crime has been committed. Salifu further referenced the Constitution to support this stance: Article 277 clearly outlines the qualifications for becoming a chief, and no one has contested that Seidu is from Bawku or that his enskinment was inconsistent with Mamprusi customs. When allegations of illegitimacy are made, it is essential to consider whether they comply with Article 277 or other relevant provisions in the Chieftaincy Act.

As for Dr. Emmanuel Bombande, the less said about his lack of impartiality and professionalism, the better. A comprehensive response to his biased analysis on Bawku will follow. However, it is essential to clarify that neither he, the president, nor the media holds the authority to determine who the legitimate Bawku Naaba is.

These misinformation and unfounded claims that Kusasis are the majority in the Bawku Traditional Area must end after reviewing this article and related works. Kusasis continue to uphold this narrative rooted in British colonial administrative decisions. Yet, they are quick to denounce other colonial legacies that contradict their interests. Such selective interpretation of history raises questions about the consistency of their arguments.

Conclusion

The Bawku chieftaincy dispute underscores the complexities of historical legitimacy, political influence, and media bias. The Mamprusi have a well-documented claim to the Bawku skin, backed by pre-colonial traditions and colonial-era authority. Yet, post-independence political shifts and media portrayals have redefined the conflict, leading to a contentious and prolonged struggle.

For lasting peace, stakeholders, including media, politicians, and traditional leaders; must approach the issue responsibly. Political figures and professionals should prioritize historical context and accuracy, and media outlets should strive for balanced reporting that respects traditional legacies rather than fuelling divisions. Ultimately, a peaceful resolution will require inclusive dialogue that honours the historical and cultural dimensions of the Bawku chieftaincy, facilitating a sustainable path forward for both Mamprusi and Kusasi. I join the call for government to treat the Bawku chieftaincy conflict, like the December 2012 election petition, for the whole world to appreciate the complexities of the conflicts.

Salifu Hamza Iddrisu
MA: International Relations and Democratic Politics

[email protected]

North East Region, Ghana
References
Agyeman-Duah, I. (2007). Chieftaincy in Ghana: Culture, governance and development, edited by Irene K. Odotei and Albert K. Awedoba. Oxford University Press.

Agyeman, L. O. (2021). Understanding the causes and dynamics of conflicts in Ghana: Insights from Bawku Traditional Area. Ghana Journal of Development Studies, 18(2), 97–116.

Allman, J. (2001). Nkrumah and the Chiefs: The Politics of Chieftaincy in Ghana, 1951-1960. JSTOR.

Anamzoya, A. S. (2010). Chieftaincy conflicts in northern Ghana: The case of the Bimbilla skin succession dispute. University of Ghana Inter-Faculty Journal, 12(1), 12–18.

Awedoba, A. K. (2010). An ethnographic study of Northern Ghanaian conflicts: Towards a sustainable peace. African Books Collective.

Bening, R. B. (2007). A Life in the Political History of Ghana: Memoirs of Alhaji Mumuni Bawumia, by Alhaji Mumuni Bawumia,(Msg) Kpeli Naa: book review. Institute of African Studies Research Review, 23(1), 57–67.

Boafo-Arthur, K. (2003). Chieftaincy in Ghana: Challenges and prospects in the 21st century. African and Asian Studies, 2(2), 125–153.

Davis, D. C. (1984). CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN MAMPURUGU: A STUDY OF TRADITION AS IDEOLOGY (GHANA, MAMPRUSI). Northwestern University.

Dramani, A., & SEBASTIAN, P. (2022). State intervention and the labyrinth of communal conflict in Ghana: How Kwame Nkrumah missed the opportunity to address the Bawku conflict.

Ladouceur, P. A. (1979). Chiefs and Politicians: the politics of regionalism in northern Ghana. (No Title).

Longi, F. Y. T. (2014). The Kusasi-Mamprusi conflict in Bawku: a legacy of British colonial policy in Northern Ghana. Ghana Studies, 17(1), 157–176.

Lund, C. (2003). ‘Bawku is still volatile’: ethno-political conflict and state recognition in Northern Ghana. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 41(4), 587–610.

Oku, G. K., & Korsah, L. A. (2019). Examining the Historical Development of the Chieftaincy Institutions in Ghana. Journal of African Studies and Ethnographic Research, 1(1), 78–87.

Rathbone, R. (2000). Nkrumah \& the chiefs: the politics of chieftaincy in Ghana, 1951-60. Ohio State University Press.

Rattray, R. S. (1932). The tribes of the Ashanti hinterland (Vol. 2). Clarendon Press.

Yidana, P. (2020). The History of Mamprugu from AD 1700 to 1957

National House of Chiefs Tribunal Rulings:20^th May, 1983

National House of Chiefs Records and Archives.