Re-Politicizing Tradition: PNDCL 75, Its Repeal, and the Quest for Justice in Bawku

In my view, the story of PNDCL 75 and its repeal is not a mere legal episode; it is the very hinge on which the contemporary Bawku chieftaincy dispute turns. While many accounts of the conflict dwell on its ethnic or historical strands, the deeper truth is that law—especially politicized law—has repeatedly unsettled the customary order, creating fractures that still bleed today. Thus, understanding how PNDCL 75 displaced, reshaped, and ultimately distorted traditional authority is essential for anyone who desires lasting peace grounded in both justice and historical truth.

The Political Dislocation of Custom

PNDCL 75, promulgated under the PNDC regime, was a turning point—not because it clarified tradition, but because it re-politicized it. By withdrawing official recognition from the Mamprusis and transferring it to the Kusasis, the decree did not merely tilt the scales; it overturned decades of judicial and administrative clarity. The earlier legal decisions, including the May 20th, 1983, the Chieftaincy Tribunal of the National House of Chiefs had consistently recognized that the Kusasi claimant was that Abugrago Azoka was a “COMMONER”, making his son “son of a commoner”, lacking the genealogical foundation required under Chieftaincy Act (Act 759), Article 277 of the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Ghana defines a chief as:

“A person, who hailing from the appropriate family and lineage, has been validly nominated, elected, or enskinned/enstooled as a chief in accordance with the relevant customary law and usage”.

In simpler terms, Article 277 states that:

1. A chief must come from the correct royal family or gate
2. Must be properly selected according to customary law
3. Must be enskinned/enstooled according to the traditions of the area
4. Recognition comes from custom, not government appointments

The Constitution safeguards the principle that chieftaincy is grounded in custom, not political decree. This raises critical questions:

1. From which royal family or gate did Asigri Azoka hail? Similarly, what is the royal lineage of Abugrago Azoka Animchema?
2. According to which customary law were they validly enskinned as chiefs?

These questions are central to understanding the legitimacy of the claims of both Mamprusi and Kusasi under Article 277 of the 1992 Constitution, which emphasizes that only those from royal gates or lineage and properly nominated and enskinned according to custom may hold chieftaincy positions. The Bawku paramountcy has historically been under the authority of the Nayiri of Mamprugu. This raises a critical question: under which customary law or tradition was Animchema Abugrago enskinned as Bawku Naaba?

Yet the decree deliberately sidestepped these findings. As the elders often say, “If you twist a rope against its natural fibre, it will break in your hands.” PNDCL 75 became that twist, and the resulting break led directly to the instability witnessed today.

Moreover, the decree transformed a political preference into a traditional title. It installed as Bawku Naaba someone whose claim did not emerge from custom but from a military government’s legislative authority. Consequently, an artificial chief was placed at the apex of a structure whose legitimacy, historically, flowed from the Nayiri’s enskinment and the established genealogies of Mamprugu.

The Silent Repeal and Its Aftermath

Furthermore, when PNDCL 75 was quietly repealed in 1996, a profound legal vacuum emerged. In theory, the repeal stripped the Kusasi claimant of the very source of his authority. In my analysis, once the statutory foundation dissolved, the basis upon which Abugrago carried himself as Bawku Naaba ceased to exist. The repeal extinguished the political scaffolding, leaving only the customary reality—which, by all historical accounts and by recent admissions before the Otumfuo, belonged to the Mamprusis.

Yet the most unsettling part of this episode is that the Mamprusis were never informed. For seven years, a people whose ancestral rights had been legally restored lived in the dark, while the state maintained an administrative silence that prolonged the very injustice the repeal was supposed to correct. It was only during their 2003 Supreme Court process that the truth surfaced: the legal barrier restraining them had been lifted years earlier.

In my view, this silence did not merely delay justice; it compounded the historical injury. As a proverb reminds us, “If a man hides the drumbeat, he hides the dance that should follow.” By withholding the repeal, the state hid the dance of reconciliation, restoration, and rightful recognition, allowing a illegitimate person to occupy and act as a chief for decades.

Where Then Lies the Kusasi Claim?

The fusion of political decree and administrative opacity left a lingering question: on what basis do the Kusasis now claim the Bawku skins? Their own admissions before the Otumfuo confirm that the Mamprusis are the first chiefs of Bawku, and that enskinment flowed from the Nayiri. Their modern claim rests almost entirely on the transient authority of PNDCL 75—an authority that vanished the moment the law was repealed.

Once repeal occurred, the Kusasi claim stood devoid of statutory support and equally devoid of customary grounding. What remained, therefore, was a political after-image: a claim sustained not by tradition, nor by law, but by the unresolved consequences of state interference in chieftaincy matters.

Toward Truth, Restoration, and Peace

In this context, any genuine road to peace must begin with acknowledging the distortions caused by PNDCL 75 and its secretive repeal. Justice demands not only legal clarity but also the restoration of the historical and customary order disrupted by political intervention. Yet, as wisely noted, if the Kusasis now seek independence rather than historical seniority, then the path forward lies not in conflict but in negotiation with the Nayiri, whose authority the Chieftaincy Tribunal of the National House of Chiefs acknowledged and as presented before the Asantehene.

Thus, the present moment stands as an opportunity for Ghana’s leadership to resolve a century-old crisis with integrity. If any president wishes to leave a legacy that outlives political cycles, it is here—in confronting the truth, correcting historical injustice, and safeguarding the dignity of tradition—that such a legacy will be carved.

By: Salifu Hamza Iddrisu

   Comments0