Chieftaincy, Mediation, and the Burden of Peace: A Balanced Reflection on the Asantehene’s Role in Ghana’s Conflicts

Ghana’s 1992 Constitution, in its wisdom, clearly separates chieftaincy from partisan politics. Chiefs are forbidden from active political engagement, not out of disdain for traditional authority, but to protect it. The framers understood that chiefs derive legitimacy from history, custom, and collective reverence, while politics is inherently adversarial, transactional, and transient. To entangle the two is to risk the corrosion of both.

Yet governance is broader than partisan politics. It includes peace building, mediation, conflict resolution, and the preservation of social cohesion --- areas where traditional authority has historically played a central role. It is within this delicate space that the Asantehene, Otumfuo Osei Tutu II, has operated, sometimes with remarkable success, and at other times with frustrating limitations. The contrasting outcomes of his mediation efforts, most notably the resolution of the Dagbon chieftaincy crisis and the ongoing impasse in Bawku have reignited national debate. Has the Asantehene been dragged into politics? Are chiefs overstepping constitutional boundaries? And if mediation fails, what next? These questions demand calm reflection rather than heated rhetoric.

Why Dagbon Succeeded Where Bawku Struggles

The successful resolution of the Dagbon chieftaincy dispute stands as one of the most significant peace building achievements in Ghana’s recent history. After nearly two decades of tension, violence, and mistrust following the killing of Ya-Naa Yakubu Andani II in 2002, the path to peace was neither quick nor easy.

Several factors made Dagbon different. First, there was a shared acceptance of traditional legitimacy. All key stakeholders --- the Abudu and Andani gates, the Dagbon Traditional Council, and the broader Dagomba community recognized the authority of Dagbon custom. Even amid deep disagreements, there was consensus on the framework within which solutions could be found. Second, the mediation was collective rather than personal. While the Asantehene chaired the Eminent Chiefs Committee, the process included the Yagbonwura, the Nayiri, the Yagbonwura, and other respected traditional leaders. This diluted perceptions of external imposition and reinforced the idea of peer mediation rather than superior arbitration. Third, the state exercised restraint. Government support was largely logistical and facilitative, not coercive. The process was allowed to mature organically, giving space for reconciliation rituals, funerary rites, and symbolic healing that no court or commission could replicate. And finally, there was political convergence. Across administrations, there was broad agreement that Dagbon required a traditional solution, not a partisan victory. That convergence insulated the process from electoral manipulation.

Why Bawku Is More Complex
Bawku, by contrast, presents a far more intricate challenge. Unlike Dagbon, the Bawku conflict is not only a chieftaincy dispute; it is also an ethno-political conflict with colonial roots, contested histories, and overlapping jurisdictions. The Kusasi and Mamprusi narratives of legitimacy are not merely rival interpretations of custom but are tied to administrative decisions dating back to colonial indirect rule. Crucially, the Mamprusi Overlord, the Nayiri, has openly rejected the outcome of the Asantehene-led mediation. In traditional governance, legitimacy flows from consent as much as from authority. When a principal party unequivocally withholds consent, enforcement becomes problematic, not legally, but morally and socially. This is where the limits of chiefly mediation become stark. A chief has no coercive power. His strength lies in moral authority, persuasion, and the voluntary submission of parties to custom. Once a party rejects that authority, the chief cannot compel obedience without undermining the very essence of traditional rule.

Has the Asantehene Been Dragged into Politics?

The question is not whether the Asantehene intended to enter politics; it is whether the political environment has pulled him in. When government publicly accepts a chiefly decision and signals readiness to deploy the army and police to enforce it, the line between mediation and state policy begins to blur. What was meant to be a traditional peace process risks being perceived as an extension of executive power. This perception is further complicated by claims, circulating on social media that Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia has suggested he would review the Asantehene’s decision if elected president. Whether accurately reported or not, such statements inject electoral calculations into a fragile peace process. To Asante supporters of the New Patriotic Party, such a stance may appear as disregard for their king. To others, it may appear as political opportunism. Either way, the politicization of a traditional mediation effort deepens mistrust and hardens positions. The danger is not only to peace in Bawku, but to the neutrality of the chieftaincy institution itself.

Chiefs, Courts, and Commissions: Are We Exhausted?

There is a growing argument that chieftaincy disputes, especially those with national security implications should be handled exclusively by commissions of enquiry or the courts. This view is understandable, but incomplete. Courts determine legality, not legitimacy. Commissions establish facts, not reconciliation. See how many chieftaincy rulings, though legally sound, remain socially unenforced decades later. Peace is not only about verdicts; it is about acceptance. That said, no chief --- however revered, has legal authority beyond his jurisdiction. When disputes spill into questions of land administration, regional security, or constitutional rights, the state cannot abdicate responsibility. The challenge, therefore, is not choosing between chiefs and institutions, but sequencing and integrating their roles.

A Word of Caution to Government
Government must tread carefully. The excessive use of force to enforce a traditional ruling risks transforming a communal dispute into a rebellion against the state. Soldiers can impose silence, but they cannot impose peace. History, from Northern Ireland to Sudan, shows that militarized enforcement of contested authority often prolongs conflict rather than resolves it. Security forces should protect lives, not adjudicate legitimacy. If the Asantehene’s mediation has not yielded consensus, it does not signify failure. It simply means that this particular avenue has reached its natural limit. Wisdom lies in recognizing that limit, not in pushing beyond it with force.

Where Do We Go From Here?
Bawku has not exhausted all options. A multi-track approach remains possible. Renewed dialogue involving neutral facilitators; a bipartisan political consensus to de-electoralise the conflict; truth-telling mechanisms to address historical grievances; and targeted development interventions that reduce the incentives for violence. Traditional leaders still have a role --- but alongside civil society, religious bodies, women’s groups, and youth leaders whose voices are often absent from elite negotiations. Above all, humility is required. No single institution, traditional or modern has a monopoly on peace.

My Thoughts
The Asantehene’s mediation efforts should be viewed neither as infallible nor as illegitimate. They represent a sincere attempt to deploy Ghana’s rich traditional capital in the service of national unity. That such efforts succeeded in Dagbon and face obstacles in Bawku is not a contradiction, it is a reflection of Ghana’s diversity and complexity. Peace is not a decree; it is a process. If Otumfuo has not yet succeeded in Bawku, it does not mean the well of peace has run dry. It simply means we must draw from other sources, patiently, inclusively, and without turning chiefs into political actors or soldiers into arbiters of tradition. In moments like these, Ghana must remember that restraint is not weakness, dialogue is not delay, and peace is never enforced --- it is built.

This is my 200^th article as a columnist with ModernGhana.Com --- Hip! Hip!! Hip!!! Hurray!!!! To the entire Editorial and Publishing Team I say, “nye ayekoo!!!” This feat within 6 months couldn’t have been possible without your cooperation and support.

FUSEINI ABDULAI BRAIMAH
+233208282575 / +233550558008
[email protected]