PNDCL 75 and the Re-Politicization of Tradition — An In-depth Analysis

Introduction — setting the frame

In my view, the promulgation and later repeal of PNDCL 75 is not a mere legislative footnote in the Bawku story; it is the fulcrum on which the modern dispute pivots. The facts are that — PNDCL 75 transferred recognition from the Mamprusis to the Kusasis, that the law was quietly repealed in 1996, and that the Mamprusis only learned of this through litigation in 2003 — require us to distinguish three separate planes of inquiry: (1) the legal effect of enactment and repeal; (2) the customary legitimacy of competing claimants; and (3) the political and restorative remedies that follow from those two. I address each of these in turn, treating them as the factual spine of the analysis.

1. Legal Effect: What Repeal Actually Does (and does not do)

When a regime enacts a law recognizing a claimant, recognition becomes a positive source of status so long as the law stands. Conversely, repeal removes that statutory source. In simple terms, once PNDCL 75 was law it supplied the Kusasi claim with de jure force; when it was repealed in 1996, that legislative foundation vanished. Therefore, on its face, Abugrago’s statutory claim ceased to exist from the date of repeal. Therefore, in 1996, Abugrago ceased being Bawku Naaba because the source of his claim was repealed. Even though he continues to carry himself as Kusasis’ Bawku Naaba, raising more questions that begs for answers from duty-bearers.

However, legal repeal rarely resolves all downstream questions automatically. Three important legal subtleties follow:

1. De jure v. de facto status: The repeal removes the law that authorized recognition; however, it does not automatically restore prior restorations or decree the immediate reinstatement of a predecessor without a process. Although the Mamprusi position is now legally unblocked, it ordinarily requires either administrative recognition (gazetting or action by the National House of Chiefs) or a judicial declaration that the prior recognition ought to be restored. In effect, the repeal eliminated the statutory barrier, but it did not, on its own, effect enskinment or formal restoration.

Consequently, in 2023, the Nayiri rightfully performed his legitimate customary and traditional duty—passed down through his ancestors—by enskinning the 15th Bawku Naaba, Naa Sheriga Alhaji Seidu Abagre Kulga. Members of the public who have been misled into believing that the conflict began because the Nayiri installed a “rival” chief in Bawku should therefore kindly reconsider their position.

2. Notice and reliance: The Mamprusis were never informed of the repeal, a silence that raises serious equitable and administrative concerns. When third parties—including state officials—continued to treat Abugrago as chief after the repeal, issues of legitimate expectation and constructive recognition naturally surfaced. Yet, while such doctrines may influence remedies or compensation for injustices created by administrative opacity, they cannot by themselves restore customary rights that had earlier been displaced by state intervention.

Accordingly, the Nayiri remains the rightful authority to restore customary right in the Bawku Traditional Area. President John Mahama, through the state machinery, ought to support this process to right the wrongs and political injustices done to the Mamprusi side for decades. Especially, when sections of the public, the state actors, sections of the media, and various political actors have continued to refer to Abugrago Animchema as the “Bawku Naaba,” in clear violation of both legal principles and customary practice.

It is therefore imperative that Naa Sheriga Alhaji Seidu Abagre Kulga—the 15th Bawku Naaba and the legitimate Paramount Chief of the Bawku Traditional Area—be duly recognized and gazetted without further delay.

c) Jurisdictional limits of tribunals and courts: The 1983 tribunal decision demonstrates that certain courts and tribunals are constrained in their ability to question the validity of military decrees or to substitute their judgment for that of the state regarding the legitimacy of such legislation. Consequently, once the repeal took effect, the matter reverted to a posture in which domestic administrative processes and customary institutions—rather than lower tribunals—must take the lead in determining status. Where constitutional issues arise, the Supreme Court remains the proper authority to pronounce on them.

In this context, the Otumfuo’s mediation represents an important and constructive development. This is because the Bawku chieftaincy question is fundamentally a traditional matter whose legitimacy, continuity, and resolution lie within the realm of customary law and practice. While statutory instruments may influence recognition, the heart of the dispute rests on ancestral authority, customary succession, and the lived traditions of the people. Therefore, returning the issue to customary mechanisms—under the guidance of the Asantehene—aligns with both legal principles and indigenous dispute-resolution norms.

2. Customary legitimacy: where the true claim lies

While statutory law may create or extinguish official recognition, customary legitimacy derives from lineage, ritual authority, and community acceptance. The historical and customary record—presented during Otumfuo’s mediation—anchors the Mamprusi claim on two enduring pillars: antiquity, with chiefs dating back to 1721, and the uninterrupted enskinment authority of the Nayiri, also established in 1721. If custom and collective memory affirm Mamprusi primacy, then even in the absence of immediate statutory restoration, the Mamprusi claim continues to hold superior customary legitimacy.

This raises critical questions that go to the heart of Ghana’s constitutional order: Can even the Supreme Court make someone a chief? Are chiefs created by military decrees? And was it ever proper for any government to issue arrest warrants for the Nayiri and Bawku Naa Sheriga—custodians of the very tradition the law seeks to protect?

Two implications flow from this:

• The Kusasis’ modern claim, bolstered only by PNDCL 75 (a political instrument), is fragile when measured against longstanding custom. Where the Kusasis’ control of the Bawku skin depended primarily on a political instrument, their moral and customary title is weaker once that instrument vanishes.

• The High Court’s 1983 characterization of the Kusasi claimant (Abugrago’s father) as “COMMONER” underlines the problem: if the occupant’s personal pedigree lacks customary entitlement, then statutory recognition looks very much like an imposition of political will over tradition. In other words, the root problem is not only legal but normative — a chief cannot be made by decree alone without the backing of ritual genealogy and the blessings of the enskining authority (The Nayiri) validating it.

3. The political afterlife: why repeal without redress breeds instability

The pattern described — law used to install, law used to remove, law quietly repealed without notice — produces a governance pathology. It creates a class of de-facto rulers whose claims rest on the caprices of state power rather than on durable customary legitimacy. This fuels grievance, inter-communal suspicion, and periodic outbreaks of violence whenever the political injustices are revived.

Consequently, repeal in 1996, followed by no formal administrative remediation (and only belated judicial exposure in 2003), left a legal vacuum and a bitter memory. The Mamprusis’ decision to discontinue their 2003 case—made after discovering the repeal—was therefore an acknowledgment that the legal obstacles had been removed. It did not, however, amount to full closure on the matter, nor did it constitute a ruling on who is the rightful Bawku Naaba.

4. Remedies and the proper path to justice — a pragmatic road map

If the aim is both legal correctness and durable peace, then justice must be both declaratory and restorative. In my view the following sequence is the most defensible and durable:

A. Declaratory clarity — There is an urgent need for an authoritative legal or administrative act that conclusively affirms the effect of the repeal and clarifies the current legal status of the Bawku skin. Such clarity may be achieved either by enabling the National House of Chiefs to formally gazette the Nayiri’s enskinned chief, or through a declaratory judgment issued by a court with proper jurisdiction, affirming the legal consequences of the 1996 repeal. In the absence of a clear and accessible public record, ambiguity inevitably persists, allowing misinformation, administrative inconsistency, and political manipulation to flourish.

Moreover, the political blackmail that arises from the existence of six (6) administrative districts and constituencies within the area should not be allowed to short-chain government or political parties into endorsing or perpetuating political injustice. Administrative complexity must never become an excuse for abandoning legal truth or customary integrity. The sociopolitical dynamics of the Bawku enclave do not confer exclusive dominance on any single ethnic group, nor do they grant any community a monopoly over the area. Instead, the region’s diversity underscores the need for principled, transparent, and justice-oriented leadership—leadership that places truth above expediency and fairness above political pressure.

B. Customary restoration where merited — if customary evidence (enskinment records, oral history, testimony from Nalerigu and elders) confirms Mamprusi primacy, then the National House of Chiefs and the relevant Regional House should facilitate formal restitution: recognition, gazetting, and the ceremonial enskinment consistent with custom. Restoration must be ritual as well as administrative.

This, the Nayiri duly carried out in 2023, in full accordance with the long-established customs and traditions of Mamprugu, of which Bawku has always been an integral component. The enskinment was therefore not an innovation or a break with precedent, but a continuation of ancestral authority exercised in its rightful domain. Indeed, colonial administrative and ethnographic records consistently affirm the Bawku enclave as North Mamprusi, reinforcing the historical, political, and customary ties that place Bawku squarely within the Mamprusi traditional sphere.

C. Truth, reparations, and institutional reforms:

In any enduring chieftaincy conflict, acknowledging historical wrongs is the first step toward sustainable peace. The Ghanaian state must therefore confront the political misuse of chieftaincy law that has, over the decades, distorted traditional authority structures in Bawku and produced deep wounds among the affected communities. A sincere state acknowledgment—grounded in truth-telling—would mark a decisive departure from the pattern of executive interference, opaque administrative action, and selective recognition that has fueled mistrust and perpetuated injustice.

From this foundation, the state can consider appropriate symbolic reparations, especially in instances where wrongful political actions displaced legitimate customary authority or caused social, economic, or psychological harm to communities. These reparative measures need not be financial; they may include formal apologies, restoration ceremonies, public declarations of historical truth, or state support for rebuilding disrupted customary institutions.

Furthermore, long-term peace demands institutional reform. The state must legislate procedural safeguards to prevent arbitrary manipulation of chieftaincy outcomes in the future. Measures such as mandatory public gazette notices before and after any recognition, compulsory consultation with Regional and National Houses of Chiefs, and a transparent, open-records system for all chieftaincy decisions would create administrative clarity and help ensure that no community is blindsided by state action—or inaction—ever again. These reforms would not only reduce conflict but would also restore confidence in the legitimacy and fairness of state involvement in traditional matters.

5. Political responsibility and moral repair

Finally, law alone cannot heal the moral wound left by decades of politicized interventions. Political leadership — whoever occupies the presidency — has a duty to pursue a politics of repair. That means using the office to sanction a transparent settlement, support Otumfuo’s findings, and insist on processes that integrate customary legitimacy with rule-of-law clarity.

Crucially, President John Mahama stands at a historic crossroads uniquely positioned to advance this agenda. His return to leadership offers an opportunity to correct the cumulative injustices that past administrations—military and civilian alike—either caused or failed to address. He is blessed with a rare chance to reconcile legal authority with customary truth, and in doing so, to heal longstanding wounds between the Mamprusi, Kusasi, and other communities of the area. By championing truth, facilitating reparations, and institutionalizing transparency, President Mahama can imprint a legacy of justice and reconciliation—one that transcends politics and restores dignity to the people of the Bawku Traditional Area.

If he seizes this moment, he would not only right the wrongs of the past but also lay the constitutional and customary foundations for a peaceful, stable, and united future.

Conclusion — where justice should lie

To appreciate the Bawku crisis and the impact of the PNDCL 75, let us ask the core question — “Where then lie the claims of both Mamprusis and Kusasis to the Bawku skins?” — the answer, when stripped of political embellishment and examined through the lenses of law, history, and custom, is unequivocal. The modern statutory foundation of the Kusasi claim rested almost entirely on PNDCL 75, a political instrument crafted within the peculiar exigencies of its time. Once that decree was repealed in 1996, its artificial scaffolding collapsed, leaving no statutory basis for exclusive Kusasi ownership of the Bawku skins. What remains, therefore, is the terrain of customary legitimacy, which — as demonstrated through historical record, ancestral practice, and the submissions made before Otumfuo’s mediation — resides firmly with the Mamprusi side.

Yet, this conclusion does not foreclose the aspirations of the Kusasi people to be chiefs, but not Bawku paramountcy. On the contrary, it opens a more honest route not through resurrecting transient political instruments or relying on the inertia of past administrative silence; rather, it lies in negotiation anchored in customary truth, where claims can be meaningfully addressed without distorting the historical primacy of the Bawku Paramountcy.

As the proverb wisely teaches, “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it still makes a sound.” The repeal of PNDCL 75 in 1996 made a legal sound — a clear, echoing signal that the statutory distortion had ended. However, the true measure of leadership lies in the willingness to hear that sound and to respond with moral clarity. Ghana’s leaders, particularly President John Mahama, now stand before a defining moment: to reconcile law with custom, to disentangle political interference from ancestral truth, and to chart a future where every community’s dignity is affirmed without erasing historical fact.

In my view, the path to lasting peace in Bawku requires more than administrative adjustments; it demands courageous statesmanship. It calls for acknowledging past wrongs, supporting rightful customary restoration, and creating a governance framework where recognition and coexistence are shaped by transparent processes rather than political expediency. Only then will Bawku — a land rich in heritage yet wounded by decades of conflict — find equilibrium between its past and its future.

Thus, where justice should lie is where truth already stands: in the restoration of customary legitimacy and in the unwavering commitment of the state to uphold fairness, transparency, and historical integrity. Only by walking this path can the Bawku Traditional Area finally emerge from the shadows of contention into the light of lasting, principled peace.

By: Salifu Hamza Iddrisu

   Comments0